domainPush

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the recipient-existence precondition but does not state that the push transfers ownership away from the current account, whether it is reversible, what happens to associated services, or any auth/lock requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 tight sentence with a useful precondition in parentheses and an API reference link. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler.

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 two-required-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema provides enough to make the call: action, target account, domains, and a critical precondition. It is slightly less complete for a potentially irreversible mutation since it omits consequences, but the low complexity keeps the gap small.

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 schema already documents recipientLogin and domains. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the implicit target of 'another NameSilo account,' which is already captured by the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a direct verb and resource: 'Push domains to another NameSilo account.' This clearly states the operation and distinguishes it from transfer-related siblings like transferDomain, which handle external registrar transfers. The parenthetical adds a key precondition without confusing the purpose.

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 use case of moving domains between NameSilo accounts and states that the recipient must exist. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer routing from the operation itself.

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