domains_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that impersonation is possible and that confirm is required, which is useful, but it does not explain side effects, permission prerequisites, failure behavior, or what confirm must be set to. For a mutating create operation, this is only partially transparent.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, followed by a dense parameter list covering all eight arguments. There is no redundant prose, and every line contributes actionable information.

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?

The description adequately covers parameters and the core action, and because an output schema exists, return values do not need to be described. However, it omits operational context such as when adding a domain is appropriate, what conditions must be satisfied, and what confirmation value the API expects, which is notable given the absence of annotations.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining every parameter: 'FQDN to add', MB/'unlimited' for bandwidth and quota, enabling semantics for the boolean toggles, owning-user meaning for impersonate, and the required confirm flag. This adds meaningful value beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a precise resource ('additional domain'), and the operating scope ('current (or impersonated) user'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling domain tools such as domains_delete, domains_list_user, and domains_set_php.

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 the intended use case—adding a domain for an existing user—and the impersonate/confirm arguments hint at administrative context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance or mention sibling tools.

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