domains_repair

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

Without annotations, the description reveals it repairs without touching DNS and gives an example, but it lacks disclosure on side effects, required permissions, error scenarios, or whether the operation is safe to re-run. The 'repair' term suggests corrective action but doesn't clarify if it's idempotent or destructive.

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 sentence of 18 words, front-loading the purpose and key constraint. No superfluous information; every word contributes to clarity.

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 simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core behavior and provides an example. However, it could be more complete by explaining what triggers the repair, the expected outcome, or success/error responses, especially since no output schema is provided.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (domain and project_id) with clear examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond reinforcing that these are part of the infrastructure being repaired, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 'Repair' and the resource 'Run402-owned ProjectDomain infrastructure', with a concrete example ('missing SES receipt-rule recipients'). It also specifies a notable constraint ('without changing external DNS'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling domain tools like domains_apply or domains_check.

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 usage when internal ProjectDomain infrastructure is broken (e.g., missing SES recipients) and explicitly states it avoids external DNS changes, hinting at alternatives that modify DNS. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for DNS-related operations.

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