connect_domain_to_publication

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals a significant side effect: subdomain mode creates a separate Domain row requiring its own DNS verification. This goes beyond the basic operation and warns about a non-obvious behavior, though it does not mention potential errors (e.g., root mode 409) which are only in the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then efficiently covers the three routing modes. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 params, enum, side-effect for subdomain), the description covers the most critical nuance (separate Domain row verification) but does not explicitly state what the function returns or all preconditions (e.g., domain must belong to the same brand). However, the rich schema descriptions fill most gaps, making this sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by showing example URLs for path and subdomain modes, but it does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., routingType enum details). The value added is marginal.

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 uses a specific verb (connect) and clearly identifies the resource (verified domain) and target (blog publication), with an explicit outcome ('articles are served from that domain'). It also enumerates the three routing modes, distinguishing this from sibling actions like add_domain or verify_domain.

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 implies prerequisites by stating 'verified domain' and 'blog publication', and it provides mode-specific guidance (e.g., subdomain requires separate DNS verification). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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