web_domain_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Update a web domain' reveals only that some mutation occurs, with no mention of side effects, destructiveness, permissions, idempotency, prerequisites, or response behavior.

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?

The description is short and contains no fluff. However, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, since the single sentence merely repeats the tool name and provides no operational content.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an unconstrained params object, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine valid update fields, expected outcomes, error conditions, or required context before invoking the 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, so the high-coverage baseline applies. The description itself adds no parameter information; the open-ended 'params' object remains underspecified, but that is a schema-level gap rather than a description-level gap under the baseline rule.

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?

The description, 'Update a web domain', is essentially the tool name rephrased rather than a meaningful explanation of what updating entails. It gives no information about which domain properties can be changed, how the update behaves, or what distinguishes it from related operations beyond the verb itself.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as web_domain_add, web_domain_delete, web_domain_get, or the various subdomain and alias tools. The only implied usage is circular: use it when updating a web domain, which is already obvious from the name.

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