add_domain

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. 'Add domain to organization' merely restates the operation and gives no information about side effects, verification workflows, domain-existence conflicts, idempotency, or required permissions.

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 sentence is brief and front-loaded with zero wasted words. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than deliberate editing, and the lack of any additional structured content limits its usefulness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but critical operational context is missing. For an unannotated mutation tool, the description should at least clarify the meaning of zoid, the nature of the domain being added, and how this step relates to other domain-management siblings; none of this is present.

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 must compensate, but it does not. 'Zoid' is completely unexplained and the expected format of domain_name is unspecified (e.g., bare domain vs. protocol-prefixed), leaving an agent without enough information to correctly populate required arguments.

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 names a specific verb ('add') and resource ('domain') with a target ('organization'), making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate this from domain-related siblings such as add_domain_alias, verify_domain, or set_primary_domain, so an agent must inspect other tools to disambiguate.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives despite many closely related domain tools in the sibling list. The description also omits sequencing details, such as whether domain ownership must be verified before or after calling this tool.

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