update_domain

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the PATCH endpoint and affected fields, but does not explain partial-update semantics, validation behavior, or whether omitted fields remain unchanged.

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 two short, front-loaded lines with no filler: the action and endpoint come first, followed by the fields being updated. Every sentence contributes directly.

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?

With full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for a straightforward PATCH mutation. The main remaining gap is PATCH-specific behavior around partial updates, but that is a minor omission given the rich schema and annotations.

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 parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description only names the high-level body fields (nameservers and handles) and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: update a specific domain via PATCH, and names the exact fields being changed (nameservers and handles). This clearly distinguishes it from retrieve_domain, cancel_domain, order_domain, and update_handle siblings.

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 makes the use case clear enough: updating nameservers and handles on an existing domain. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions such as when to use handle-specific update tools instead.

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