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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new consequences: future control moves to this workspace, existing URLs persist as frozen continuity routes, and page data, forms, analytics, and history are not copied. That is exactly the impact information an agent needs before a destructive, irreversible-feeling activation.

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 precondition and the confirmation requirement are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by the consequences. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing restates the title or annotations.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool the description covers authorization gating, scope of change, and data-continuity semantics thoroughly. It does not say what the call returns or how success/failure of activation is reported, which is the only remaining gap.

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?

Only one parameter (attemptId), and schema description coverage is 100% with the schema stating it is 'the verified domain control attempt ID to activate.' The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('activate') plus the exact resource ('custom-domain control handover') and pins the precondition ('after DNS TXT verification has completed'). This clearly separates it from the sibling verification/setup tools (start_domain_control_verification, check_domain_control_verification, setup_custom_domain) without needing their schemas.

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?

'Use only after explicit user confirmation' is an explicit gating condition, and the verification-complete prerequisite tells the agent when in the pipeline to call it. It stops short of naming the sibling tools to call first or when-not-to-use alternatives, keeping it at a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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