graph.domain.create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning potential side effects, required permissions, or constraints (e.g., uniqueness of slug). It doesn't disclose what happens on duplicate slug or whether it's a safe operation. This is a significant gap for a create-like operation.

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, which is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is slightly sparse, lacking any additional context that could be valuable. It earns a 4 because it is efficient with 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, many of which are optional (tags, aliases, status, description), and no annotations or output schema, the description is underspecified. It does not explain the relationship between domains and projects, the meaning of aliases, or any constraints. A more complete description would clarify the domain creation context.

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%, so the description does not add any parameter info. However, the schema itself has clear property names (slug, name, project_id, etc.) and types. The description lists no parameters, but the schema is self-explanatory for most fields, giving a baseline of 3.

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 says: 'Cria um novo domínio no catálogo do grafo.' This clearly states the verb (create) and resource (domain in graph catalog), but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like graph.domain.update or graph.category.create. It is a clear but generic statement without specific scope details.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as graph.domain.update or graph.category.create. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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