domain_add_directives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether existing directives are overwritten or merged, whether the change is immediately applied, or what permissions are required for this mutation.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the args list is tight with no filler. Structure is clean, though the example is inline and could be marginally more compact.

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 explained, and both parameters are covered. However, for a mutation tool with no usage guidance and no disclosure of overwrite semantics, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps an agent would want filled.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so well: full_fqdn is defined as the full domain name and directives is defined as a JSON array with a concrete example object. The example is especially valuable because the schema types directives as a plain string. It does not enumerate allowed directive names or value formats.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Set PHP directives for domain'. The verb 'set/задать' is distinct from the read sibling domain_get_directives and the delete sibling domain_remove_directives, so the agent can differentiate by operation. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 on when to use this versus the closely related domain_get_directives and domain_remove_directives, nor any prerequisites (does the domain already need to exist, does it merge or replace). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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