panelica_domains_patch_v1_domains_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the core mutation safety profile is covered. The description adds the required scope 'domains:write' and explicitly says 'Mutating: changes server state,' but does not explain potential side effects of updating a domain or what happens to domain configurations.

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 front-loaded with the core operation, followed by HTTP method, category, scope, and mutation status. Almost every line carries useful routing or invocation information, though 'Update domain' and 'Mutating: changes server state' are somewhat redundant with the path and annotations.

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 generic PATCH endpoint with an open-world body schema and no output schema, the description is not sufficient for an agent to construct a correct request body. It also does not clarify which domain aspects are updatable or when to prefer one of the many sibling domain-specific PATCH tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the body parameter is only described as 'Schema not statically declared — see API docs.' The tool description adds no field-level meaning, so the agent still has no idea which domain fields can be updated in the body.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Update domain' with HTTP PATCH /v1/domains/:id, which identifies the base domain resource rather than a subresource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling domain PATCH endpoints like modsecurity, php, spf, or webserver, leaving some potential ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this generic domain update versus the specialized domain PATCH endpoints. The description provides metadata like scope and mutating status, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions or references to alternatives.

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