domain_change_php

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, but the description adds nothing further: it never says what the change affects, whether the site is restarted, what permissions are needed, or whether the change is reversible. Given the lower bar set by annotations, this is still a notable gap 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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the two argument lines are tight and example-driven, with no filler. The Args block is slightly boilerplate-heavy but earns its place given the 0% schema coverage.

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 documented. What is missing for a domain-mutating tool is permissions/eligibility context and how it differs from domain_php_version, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 carries the burden, and it does so for both required parameters: full_fqdn is explained with a concrete example ('site.ru') and php_version with accepted formats ('8.1, 8.2, 8.3'). It stops short of stating whether the version must be pre-installed or whether the value is validated, but the format guidance is real added value.

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 verb and resource ('Переключить версию PHP для домена'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish this mutating tool from the sibling domain_php_version or explain how the two relate.

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 prerequisites (e.g. that the domain must already be added), and no reference to alternatives such as domain_php_version. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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