setDomainProperties

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses lock acquisition/release behavior, the merge semantics that prevent data loss, the transport requirement, and the inactive-write/activation workflow. This is far richer than the annotation flags alone and sets correct expectations for a mutating operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the most important behavioral caveats. No filler, repetition, or scene-setting; every sentence earns its place.

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 19-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is changed, how merge works, locking, transports, and activation, even pointing to activateSafe as a fallback. The remaining details are in the fully covered input schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for lockHandle ('taken and released here unless you pass a handle...'), transport ('outside $TMP a transport request is needed'), and activate ('pass activate to finish the job'). This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter notes.

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 opens with 'Change the definition of an existing DDIC domain', naming a specific verb and resource, and adds the precise backend behavior ('PUT replaces the whole definition'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from read-only siblings like getDomainProperties and creation tools like createDomain.

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?

It specifies this is for an existing domain and gives the operational context: read-merge-write happens on the server, a transport request is needed outside $TMP, and the tool writes the inactive version unless activate is passed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'existing DDIC domain' scope plus activation instructions make the intended use clear.

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