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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds two genuinely useful traits beyond them — that the change is staged rather than applied immediately, and that no human approval gate is involved. It leaves open what 'staged' concretely means (whether it takes effect on apply, on next deploy, or can be discarded).

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the mutable surface comes first and the behavioral caveats follow. 'Staged.' is the only sentence that is terse to the point of being cryptic rather than economical.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what changes and the no-approval/no-destructiveness profile, but says nothing about what a staged change produces, how it is later applied or abandoned, or what expect_revision failure looks like. Complete enough to call, not complete enough to predict the outcome.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, and the description correctly signals the two interesting ones (prefix, port). It adds no format or interaction detail — notably nothing about how expect_revision or the project/environment pair should be supplied — so it stays at the baseline.

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?

It names a specific verb (Change) and the exact mutable aspects (a generated domain's prefix, or the port any domain reaches), which cleanly separates it from the add/remove siblings in the domain_* family. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 phrasing implies this is the tool for modifying an existing domain rather than creating or deleting one, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus domain_add / domain_remove, and no stated prerequisites. The only guidance given is the behavioral note that the call is staged and needs no human approval.

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