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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real value with the return shape ('updated configuration with the current domain status'), the out-of-band domain verification workflow, and the idempotency_key retry contract. However, it never explains what makes this destructive — the schema's many 'null clears/resets' semantics — and the retry-safe claim sits in tension with idempotentHint=false, which an agent may read as conflicting rather than as key-scoped idempotency.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with scope, then return value, then the domain caveat, then the retry contract. No filler. It could be tighter by folding the retry note into the same sentence as the idempotency_key requirement, but nothing is wasted.

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 37-parameter, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description does cover return value and one critical precondition (verified sending domains are actually documented in the schema, not here). It omits the partial-update semantics — that omitted fields are left alone while explicit nulls clear or reset values — which is the single most important thing an agent needs to avoid data loss on this tool.

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 95%, so the parameter semantics are already carried by the schema (null-clears behavior, enum meanings, the PUBLIC_API_WHITE_LABEL_SENDING_DOMAIN_UNVERIFIED failure). The description names no specific field and adds only that domains are verified elsewhere. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (update) and enumerates the resource surfaces it covers: white-label branding, email settings, and visibility toggles. That is enough for an agent to know this is the write counterpart to aidelly_get_white_label_config. It stops short of distinguishing itself from aidelly_update_ai_credit_alert_settings, which the mention of 'email settings' partially overlaps with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says to read first via aidelly_get_white_label_config, nothing says which of the 37 fields are safe to omit, and nothing routes the AI-credit-alert email wording to the sibling tool that owns it. The only conditional statement ('custom domains are changed and verified in the Aidelly app') is a constraint, not usage guidance.

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