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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent write. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by clarifying that the update is limited to mutable configuration and does not require or trigger re-verification. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the sole updatable field, and the notable side-effect avoidance of re-verification in a compact and easily parseable format.

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 update tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers what changes, what cannot change, and a key behavioral guarantee. It does not explicitly state preconditions like the domain already existing or being verified, but the sibling tool set and context make this a minor 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?

The schema already documents both parameters fully, but the description adds extra meaning by stating that `feedbackEnabled` is currently the only updatable field. This clarifies that `id` serves purely as an identifier and that other domain properties cannot be changed through this tool, which is beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Update mutable configuration on a domain.' It narrows the scope to the single updatable field `feedbackEnabled` and explains its effect as toggling SES bounce and complaint feedback processing. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling domain tools like create, delete, get, list, and verify.

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 intended use is clear: update an existing domain's feedback processing without re-verifying the domain. The description does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'currently the only updatable field' wording and sibling tool set make the boundary reasonably obvious.

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