ecp_apps_update_static_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation creates an nginx block and updates a domain record, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether existing nginx config is overwritten), reversibility, permission requirements, or failure behavior. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Point a static-site app at a domain') and immediately follows with the concrete implementation steps. Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick parsing.

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 moderate complexity, no output schema, and no annotations. The description omits essential context: return value, error scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., app must exist and be static-site), and the format of 'id'. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly without additional information, making it incomplete for its context.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'id' parameter at all. It mentions 'domain' in the text, which hints at its meaning, but 'id' remains ambiguous (e.g., is it the app ID?). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, which already lists 'id' and 'domain' but provides no descriptions. The agent is left guessing about parameter formats and constraints.

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 clearly states the verb ('Point a static-site app at a domain') and the resource ('static-site app'), and specifies the two concrete actions performed ('creates the nginx static block' and 'updates the app's domain record'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecp_apps_update_domain, which is likely for non-static apps, and ecp_nginx_set_conf, which handles nginx config generically.

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 implies usage for static-site apps, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over the sibling ecp_apps_update_domain or other domain-related tools. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., app must be static-site type). The guidance is implicit but not actionable for an agent deciding between this and alternatives.

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