claim_subdomain

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions auth requirement but does not explain what happens on conflict (e.g., if subdomain already claimed), whether the operation is idempotent, or any side effects. This lack of detail could lead to misuse.

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?

Description is a single sentence with key details (action, example, auth requirement). No wasted words, but could be structured into separate sentences for clarity. Still highly effective.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description provides basic purpose and auth requirement. It misses some contextual details like whether the name must be unique, but siblings (list_subdomains, delete_subdomain) partially fill the gap. Adequate but not thorough.

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 already documents parameters. Description adds general context (e.g., example for name) but no new semantic meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'claim' and resource 'custom subdomain' with an example (myapp.run402.com). It distinguishes from siblings like add_custom_domain and check_domain_status by focusing on subdomains under the service's domain.

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?

Provides context: 'Free, requires service_key auth.' and an example usage pattern. Although it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the context implies when to use this tool (claiming a subdomain vs. adding external custom domains).

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