faber_create_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'includes SSL setup,' which adds some behavioral context beyond the basic creation. However, it lacks critical details such as permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., downtime), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Create and assign a domain to an app') and includes a useful detail ('includes SSL setup'). There is no wasted wording, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or what the tool returns. The mention of SSL setup is helpful but insufficient for a creation tool that likely has significant operational impact.

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 the schema fully documents the three parameters (domain, app, server). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 action ('Create and assign') and resource ('a domain to an app'), specifying that it includes SSL setup. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'faber_list_domains' by indicating creation rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'faber_create_database' or 'faber_create_stack' in terms of resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing app), exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'faber_list_domains' for viewing domains or 'faber_set_env_var' for other app configurations. Usage is implied only by the action described.

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