site_link_domain

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 operation's safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether linking overwrites an existing domain association, whether it is idempotent, or what permissions are required for this mutation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 single purpose sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the Args block is pure redundant restatement of the schema's parameter names and adds no information, wasting space without being egregiously verbose.

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 described. However, for a two-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, the description omits idempotency, overwrite behavior, and prerequisites — leaving the agent under-informed about how to invoke it correctly.

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 is the only place parameter meaning could be added. It merely restates the parameter names in Russian ('site_id: ID сайта', 'domain_id: ID домена') without format, valid-range, or relationship details, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 specific verb+resource ('Назначить домен для сайта' = assign a domain to a site), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'site_unlink_domain'. It is not a tautology, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 alternatives such as domain_add or site_unlink_domain, and no prerequisites or preconditions stated. The agent must infer usage 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.