set_domain_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so: it discloses the forward-only scope ('only governs new writes'), the separate remediation path, the collision-preview behavior of that path, and the return value. This is rich behavioral context rarely seen.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, then modes, then the critical caveat. Slightly longer than minimal but every clause carries new information about scope or remediation.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: valid values, effect semantics, scope limitation, and return shape.

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 no enum is defined in the schema, so the description must define the parameter. It does precisely: lists all three legal values and explains the effect of each, compensating fully for the schema gap.

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 and resource ('Set the store's domain-casing policy') and enumerates the exact policy values. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_domain_case or list_domains.

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?

Explains what each mode does and, critically, the boundary condition: this only governs new writes, and existing domains require a separate admin action. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the constraint is clear.

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