update_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. It does not disclose permission requirements, reversibility, side effects of moving an entry between allow/deny lists, or what happens to unspecified fields on an update — significant gaps 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb+resource leads and the mutable facets follow. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It omits the kind/new_kind semantics and any behavioral context; an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input side is under-covered.

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% across 8 params, so the description must compensate. It maps meaning onto comment, groups, enabled, and list movement (new_type), but says nothing about kind vs new_kind (the exact/regex pattern-mode distinction) or the required domain/domain_type identifier pair.

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 ('Update a domain-list entry') and enumerates the mutable facets (list membership, comment, groups, enabled state). It is clearly distinguishable from add_domain/remove_domain/list_domains, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 prerequisite (e.g., that the entry must already exist), and no routing to add_domain/remove_domain. The only inference is that this modifies an existing entry, which the agent must deduce.

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