domain_update

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 effectively communicates that this is a mutation tool ('Update'), specifies constraints (e.g., cannot change domain names, not for TCP proxy), and mentions prerequisites and next steps. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which would be helpful 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet-pointed sections for best uses, exclusions, and related actions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan for an AI agent.

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 complexity of a domain update tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage guidelines, and exclusions. It mentions prerequisites and next steps, which adds helpful context. However, it could improve by detailing the response format or error cases, as there's no output schema to rely on.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (id and targetPort). The description adds some context by mentioning 'target ports' and 'ID of the domain', but this largely repeats what's in the schema. It doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Update a domain's configuration') and distinguishes it from siblings like domain_create, domain_delete, and domain_list. It explicitly mentions what it updates (target ports, settings, endpoints), making the scope unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance with 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, naming specific use cases (changing target ports, updating settings) and exclusions (changing domain names, TCP proxy configuration). It also lists prerequisites (domain_list), next steps (domain_list), and related tools (service_update), offering comprehensive context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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