ecp_apps_update_domain

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does name a concrete side effect (creating the nginx server block), but it does not say whether an existing block is overwritten, whether this is reversible, or what permissions are implied.

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 one short front-loaded sentence with no filler, repetition, or boilerplate. It names the action and the main side effect efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the core goal and one key side effect, making it minimally usable. However, it lacks context about overwrite behavior, domain format expectations, and the sibling static-domain tool, which weakens its completeness.

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%, and the description only indirectly maps id to an app and domain to the target domain. No format, constraints, or interaction between id and domain is given, so the agent has to infer the parameter details.

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 concrete action and resource: point an app at a domain, create the nginx server block, and update the app's domain record. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ecp_apps_update_static_domain, so it is not a perfect 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the app existing, or how this relates to alternatives like ecp_apps_update_static_domain.

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