Update Domain Settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing a real side effect ('flushes MCP cache') and clarifying partial-update semantics. It stops short of auth/permission requirements, but the cache-flush disclosure is genuine added value.

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 labeled four-line structure (Purpose/Inputs/Returns/Side effects) is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is slightly telegraphic, but every line carries information relevant to invocation.

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 and no output schema, the description covers inputs, return shape, and side effects, which is roughly adequate. However, it omits the differentiation from the domains.info.update sibling and any permission/error context, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description restates them ('domain'; 'settings' — fields to update) without adding syntax or format detail. The free-form 'settings' object (additionalProperties {}) is inherently opaque, and the description does not compensate.

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 ('Partial update') and pins the exact endpoint (PUT /v1/domains/{key}). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling fortimail.domains.info.update, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling fortimail.domains.info.update, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only hint is 'partial update', which is not enough to route the agent among the many domain/profile update siblings.

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