Set custom domain nameservers

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

The [WRITE] marker restates readOnlyHint=false rather than adding new behavioral information, but the description does disclose the underlying API endpoint and request body shape. It says nothing about propagation effects, what happens to existing nameservers, or whether the change is reversible — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: the write nature and action come first, followed by the endpoint mapping. The 'Offline FA (cdn/...)' notation is cryptic filler that costs a little clarity.

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 write tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain prerequisites and consequences of changing nameservers. Instead it only maps to an internal endpoint, leaving the agent without enough context to call this safely or correctly.

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% for two required parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only shows the body shape {"ns_keys":[...]}, which mostly mirrors the schema, and says nothing about valid NS key format, how many are required, or how the domain path parameter is used.

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 ('Set') and resource ('custom NS keys') on a domain, which is enough to distinguish it from read-only siblings like check_domain_nameservers. The term 'NS keys' is unexplained jargon, and there is no explicit differentiation from use_optional_nameservers, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions the obvious alternatives (check_domain_nameservers, use_optional_nameservers) or prerequisites such as the domain being registered. The agent must infer context entirely.

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