domains_apply

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It hints that manual-DNS domains do not mutate external DNS, implying provider-managed ones do, but it lacks details on side effects, permissions, reversibility, or response format. Minimal 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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and adds a crucial distinction. It is concise without waste, though splitting could slightly improve readability.

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, no annotations, and a tool that likely has side effects, the description lacks key context: what 'apply' entails, prerequisites, return value details, and error scenarios. It explains two domain types but leaves significant gaps for an agent to use safely.

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% with descriptions for both parameters (domain and project_id). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents all parameters.

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 that the tool applies provider-managed ProjectDomain changes when authority is available, contrasting with manual-DNS behavior. The verb 'apply' and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling domain tools by referencing authority and manual-DNS, though 'changes' could be more explicit.

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 implies when to use (authority available for provider-managed domains) and hints at an alternative for manual-DNS (which returns a typed next action), but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use. This provides moderate guidance but lacks clear boundaries.

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