Alter Domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the list of updatable properties and does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or consequences of renaming or changing domain ownership.

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 sentence with no filler. Every listed item corresponds to an actionable alteration, so it is appropriately sized for the description's scope.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output-schema concern for the description. The definition omits required-parameter meaning, usage context, and behavioral details, making it too thin for a domain-alteration operation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names the mutable attributes (name, description, split/merge policy, owner), which maps to several optional parameters, but it does not explain workspace_path or domain_name, and gives no syntax or default information.

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 (更新) and resource (属性域) and lists the mutable aspects: name, description, split/merge policy, owner. It is clear enough to distinguish from domain creation/deletion by implication, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or boundaries against sibling domain tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_domain or delete_domain. The agent is left to infer that this tool alters an existing domain.

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