panelica_docker_post_v1_docker_domains_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the required scope docker:write and confirms 'Mutating: changes server state', but provides no extra context about side effects, reversibility, or postconditions. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four short lines with the core purpose first, followed by HTTP method, category, scope, and mutation flag. No wasted words.

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 mutating endpoint with an opaque request body and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It omits what body fields are needed, how linking behaves, and when to choose this over the unlink or list siblings.

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% for the single body parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter details, and the schema itself only says to consult API docs, so the agent still lacks concrete body field knowledge.

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 first line states a clear outcome - serving an installed app on the customer's own domain - with a specific resource. It does not explicitly say 'link' or differentiate from the sibling unlink tool, but the intent is reasonably clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling docker_domains_unlink or docker_domains_linked list tool. It only lists scopes and mutation, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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