disable_subdomain_stripping

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, yet it reveals only the intended action. It does not state side effects, reversibility, whether existing domains are affected, or downstream impact on email routing and domain behavior.

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?

Five words is lean, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. The only sentence merely rewords the tool name and earns no informational weight, so brevity buys nothing.

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 mutating configuration tool with two undocumented required parameters, no annotations, and a direct enable/disable sibling pair, the description leaves the agent without the basics: what the feature is, what the parameters mean, and what the operation changes. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing operational semantics.

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% and the description never mentions zoid or domain_name. The agent receives no hint about what a 'zoid' is or how domain_name should be formatted. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's silence on both required parameters.

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 'Disable sub-domain stripping' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name with spaces inserted; it adds no semantic content beyond the name itself. It conveys a verb+resource pair, so it is not entirely missing, but it never explains what sub-domain stripping is or what the operation actually affects.

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 guidance is provided about when to call this tool versus its direct inverse sibling enable_subdomain_stripping, nor any prerequisites such as domain verification or existing configuration state. The single sentence offers zero context for tool selection.

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