add_domain

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it does not. It never says whether duplicate host entries fail or overwrite, whether a certificate is issued only after DNS is verified, whether the routing change is applied immediately or requires a redeploy, or whether the change is reversible; the phrase 'automatic HTTPS' only hints at certificate provisioning.

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, front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is ideal short-form structure. It is terse to the point of omitting behavior, but it contains no wasted content.

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?

This tool is nontrivial because it involves 6 parameters, 3 of which are required, and TLS and routing side effects, and it has no annotations and no output schema. One sentence cannot cover the failure modes an agent must anticipate, so the definition is materially under-specified for its complexity.

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 67%, and the schema leaves https and via_tunnel undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning at all: it never mentions the host, path prefix, port mapping, or what via_tunnel changes about the setup. For a 6-parameter mutation tool, this is a real gap.

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 states a concrete action on a concrete resource: it routes a service to a domain and provisions HTTPS automatically. That distinguishes it from the sibling remove_domain, which is the clear inverse. The verb 'serve' is slightly indirect compared with 'add', but the intent is still easy to grasp.

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 guidance on when to call this tool: no prerequisites, such as a deployed service or a DNS record that points at the server, and no mention of when not to call it. An agent must infer that the action is a write operation and that later removal is done through a separate tool with a sibling name.

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