Update Domain Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious side effect beyond the annotations — 'Flushes MCP cache' — which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express. It stops short of covering auth requirements or replace-vs-merge semantics.

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 labeled lines (Purpose / Inputs / Side effects), each front-loaded and free of filler. Purpose and endpoint come first, then the payload shape, then the side effect — no wasted sentences.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, payload fields, and the cache-flush side effect. It omits whether the PUT replaces or merges the info object (i.e., whether omitted fields are cleared), which is the one gap an agent calling a PUT endpoint would want.

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% for the two top-level params, but the nested 'info' object is declared only as additionalProperties:{} with 'Fields to update'. The description enumerates the actual updatable fields (customer_name, customer_email, account_limit, comment), which the schema does not, so it adds real meaning beyond the structured data.

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 ('Update metadata') and pins it to the endpoint PUT /v1/domain-info/{key}, and 'metadata' implicitly separates it from the sibling fortimail.domains.update that changes the domain itself. Clear purpose, though the sibling differentiation is left for the agent to infer rather than stated outright.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite guidance. The description never mentions fortimail.domains.update or fortimail.domains.info.get, so the agent must infer from the name alone that this targets domain metadata rather than the domain record. Usage is only implied by the purpose line.

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