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

The description states "Idempotent" while the annotations declare idempotentHint=false, a direct contradiction of the structured safety contract. It also says nothing about what destructiveHint=true actually destroys (existing routing, prior subdomain bindings) or what permissions are needed. With annotations present, the description should supplement them, not contradict them.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded, so it is not padded. But the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — the second sentence exists only to make a claim that conflicts with the annotations.

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 destructive, mutating tool with an undocumented parameter and no output schema, the definition supplies neither the target of the mutation nor the effect on existing state. An agent cannot call this confidently without opening the schema and hoping the id's meaning is inferable.

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?

There is one required parameter (id) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — not its meaning, whether it identifies a deployment, a domain, or something else. The description does not compensate for the schema's silence.

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?

"Assign a subdomain" gives a verb and a resource, but the object is ambiguous — the tool name and the parenthetical "(activate domains)" hint at deployment-level domain activation without saying so explicitly. It never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as deployments_setCustomDomain or deployments_setSlug, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. With siblings covering custom domains, slugs, and removal operations, the agent is left to guess which domain tool applies to its situation.

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