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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the asynchronous lifecycle: attach returns the required CNAME (clients.dropyour.site) and the 'en_attente' state, and the domain only serves once DNS points to Dropyour and the certificate is issued ('actif'). It also adds quota limits and an auth requirement. It stops short of saying whether 'detach' is reversible or what happens to a serving domain when detached mid-flight.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by action-by-action behavior and then prerequisites, so the reader can stop early. It is dense with parentheticals (quota, example hostname, DNS target, state names) but nearly every one carries operational information rather than 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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the state machine, DNS prerequisite, auth requirement, and quota — enough to call it correctly and interpret results. Remaining gaps are the meaning of dropId, the conditional hostname requirement, and any error behavior when the quota is exceeded.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it partially does: the action enum values are all explained and the hostname is given a example format (app.example.com) plus the CNAME target. However, 'dropId' is never mentioned, and it does not state that hostname is conditionally required for 'attach' but not for 'status'/'detach' — a gap an agent could easily trip on.

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 and resource: serve an app under the owner's own domain, then enumerates the three operations (attach, status, detach) with their effects. No sibling tool (app_tools, publish, update_settings, etc.) overlaps in a way that would confuse selection, so an agent can route to this tool from the name plus the first clause alone.

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?

Each action is paired with its purpose: 'attach' with a hostname, 'status' re-checks it, 'detach' removes it, and the prerequisite 'Needs a connected account' plus the Pro quota of three per account are stated upfront. There are no explicit when-not conditions, but no sibling offers an alternative domain path, so the missing exclusions are low-cost.

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