createDomain

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

Beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the critical non-atomicity: 'Nothing is rolled back if a step fails - the answer reports each step, and a domain that was created but not written is still there to correct or delete.' This partial-failure behavior is exactly the kind of context an agent needs and is not derivable from the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, differentiation comes second, and failure behavior is last. Each sentence earns its place. It is slightly dense but appropriate for the complexity of a 19-parameter mutation tool.

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?

Given 19 parameters, minimal annotations, and no output schema, the description carries a heavy burden. It covers the pipeline, the createObject pitfall, and the partial-failure/return-reporting behavior ('the answer reports each step'). It could mention transport handling or when to use setDomainProperties for modifications, but for a creation tool the coverage is strong.

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 100%, so all 19 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by mapping the pipeline to parameter groups ('write the type and output format (and value table or fixed values)' → datatype, outputLength, valueTable, fixValues), but this is redundant with the schema's per-parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource+scope: 'Create a DDIC domain and give it its definition, in one call.' It enumerates the exact pipeline (validate, create, lock, write, unlock, activate) and explicitly differentiates from the sibling createObject, which 'alone leaves a domain with no definition, which cannot be activated.' An agent can clearly tell what this does and how it differs from nearby 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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use the sibling createObject and implies this tool is the correct choice for a fully-defined domain. It does not enumerate every alternative (e.g., setDomainProperties for editing an existing domain, getDomainProperties for reading), but the primary routing decision is handled clearly. Strong guidance with minor gaps.

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