domains_set_php

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the tool mutates state ('Set'), identifies impersonation as owning user, and marks confirm as required. However, it does not explain side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens to the existing PHP configuration, which a fully transparent mutation description would include.

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 compact and well structured: one clear purpose sentence followed by a concise argument list. Every line contributes information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple setter with an output schema, the parameter explanations are adequate. However, the absence of usage guidance, alternative differentiation, and side-effect disclosure leaves meaningful gaps that annotations would normally cover. It is a minimum-viable description rather than a fully complete one.

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 0%, yet the description accounts for all four parameters and adds real meaning beyond their titles. It explains that php1_select is a panel selector index mapping to PHP versions and that impersonate is the owning user. The only weakness is the ambiguous 'confirm: Required' note, which conflicts slightly with the schema's non-required status and default false.

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 opening sentence names a specific action and target: 'Set the PHP version selector for a domain.' This is clear enough to identify what the tool does and distinguishes it from generic domain operations. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from cl_php_selector_set, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cl_php_selector_set, domains_create, or other domain configuration tools. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit when-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer the usage context.

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