add_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It adds one useful nugget (groups defaults to group 0) but says nothing about duplicate handling, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens when kind=regex is used.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. The parenthetical groups note is compact and earns its place, though it reads slightly like an afterthought tacked onto a sentence about lists.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 6-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the description is thin. It omits comment/enabled semantics, conflict behavior, and which of the similarly named whitelist/blacklist tools it supersedes.

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 must compensate. It clarifies domain, the exact/regex distinction, domain_type (allow/deny), and the groups default, but leaves comment and enabled completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Add') and resource ('an exact domain or a regex') plus the target lists (allow/deny), which is clearer than most siblings. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the overlapping add_to_whitelist / add_to_blacklist siblings, leaving the agent to guess which naming convention to use.

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 exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as update_domain, remove_domain, or add_to_whitelist. The only usage hint is implicit in the phrase 'allow or deny list'.

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