connect_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies routing and enables TLS, and clarifies that it does not buy domains. However, it does not discuss what happens if the domain is already connected, potential side effects, error states, or permission requirements, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key constraints. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters) and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or what constitutes success/failure. It does not mention return values, error handling, or prerequisites beyond ownership and app publishing. Sibling tools are available for checking, but the description does not leverage them for completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds that 'app_id must be published' and gives an example domain, but these are only marginally helpful beyond the schema. The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Connect' and the resource 'a domain' with specific conditions: the domain must be owned by the user and the app must be published. It also describes what the tool does (sets up routing and automatic TLS) and differentiates from sibling tools like 'check_domain' and 'search_domains' by focusing on connection.

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 explicit conditions for use: the app must be published, the user must point the domain's A record to Kleap, and it clarifies that it does not purchase domains. It lacks explicit mention of alternatives among siblings or when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough to guide typical usage.

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