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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that human approval is required by default, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not clarify what the destructiveHint signifies in the context of adding a domain, nor does it describe the post-request flow (e.g., async approval, rejection outcomes).

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the action and resource, and the second adds a key constraint. Every word earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, the tool involves an approval workflow and is marked as destructive, yet the description does not explain how to supply approval credentials or what destructive behavior may occur. For a tool with these parameters and annotations, the description leaves notable gaps.

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 67% (domain and approval_token have descriptions; approval_id does not). The description mentions 'human approval' but does not explain how approval_id or approval_token relate to that process. It adds slight context beyond the raw schema but does not fully compensate for the missing description of approval_id.

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 the specific verb 'Request' with a clear resource ('a custom domain to be connected to MiniURL'), and the second sentence adds the distinct nuance of human approval. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like verify_domain or delete_domain.

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 provides clear context that agent domain changes require human approval by default, which implies when to use this tool and the expected workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough that confusion with siblings is unlikely.

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