Set CDN domain plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's '[WRITE]' tag merely restates the write nature and the endpoint reference is metadata, adding no behavioral context such as billing impact, immediate-vs-eventual effect, or required permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded line that leads with the write tag and packs the enum mapping and endpoint without waste. The vague 'per domain docs' hand-off is the only minor flaw.

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 2-param write tool with no output schema, the description covers the plan-level values and endpoint but omits permissions, the effect of a plan change, and any detail on the domain argument. Adequate but with clear 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning to plan_level (basic/growth/professional) that the schema's bare const values lack, but the required 'domain' parameter is left entirely unexplained.

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 (domain plan_level), and even enumerates the meaning of each value (1=basic, 2=growth, 3=professional). An agent immediately knows this mutates a CDN domain's plan tier, which is distinct from the get_domain/list_domains siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no statement of when-not to use it. The [WRITE] tag and plan-level mapping imply the context, but there is no explicit usage routing.

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