vercel_add_domain

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Add a new domain' discloses only the action, not side effects (e.g., does it overwrite an existing domain?), authorization needs, or idempotency. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely short, which risks being under-specified. While it is concise, it lacks necessary context for effective tool use. A single sentence is not enough to earn a higher score.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters (one required), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, success/failure indications, or any additional behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient 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?

The input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Add a new domain' clearly uses a verb ('Add') and a resource ('domain'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list' and 'delete'. However, it omits context about associating the domain with a project, which the 'projectId' parameter implies could be important.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use list or delete), nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints such as domain ownership verification.

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