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

The description goes well beyond annotations, explaining that it writes to Inclusify configuration only, never to the site itself, does not change the domain, applies immediately, requires no confirmation, is reversible, and that a no-op call produces a specific response. This matches idempotentHint=true and does not contradict any annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses each sentence to eliminate a common misconception: no domain change, no visitor-visible effect, no routing change, use add_domain for hostnames, idempotent, reversible. Despite its length, every sentence contributes value.

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 two-parameter, simple mutation tool with rich annotations, this description covers when to use it, what it affects, what it does not affect, how to handle the alternative case, and what happens on redundant calls. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing, and no output schema is required.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by clarifying that everything is addressed by domain rather than by name, and that the name parameter is only a display label that cannot move or redirect the site. This supplements the schema's descriptions rather than merely repeating them.

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 uses a specific verb ('rename') and clear resource ('a site's display label inside Inclusify'), and immediately contrasts itself with add_domain. An agent can distinguish this tool from every sibling without needing to inspect 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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('tidying up a default name, or matching a rebrand') and gives a direct alternative: 'To point Inclusify at a different or additional hostname use add_domain instead — renaming will not do it.' This leaves no ambiguity about routing.

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