Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important requirement (owners only) and indicates the mutating nature of the operation by saying 'rewrite.' However, it does not explain potential side effects, whether existing custom DNS records are overwritten, or what happens after the rewrite.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single focused sentence that leads with the action and outcome, then adds the two relevant trigger scenarios and the permission requirement. Every phrase earns its place with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and who can use it. It is slightly incomplete because it does not clarify how the rewrite interacts with existing DNS records, but overall the essential guidance is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the domain or workspace parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific action (rewriting DNS records), a specific resource (Boathouse-managed domains), and the intended outcome (pointing at Boathouse again). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like domain_point or domain_dns, but the context 'after a move, or if someone changed them' makes the purpose distinct enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: use this when a domain has moved or had its DNS records changed externally. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the trigger scenarios are concrete and usable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.