Add a domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description usefully adds batch semantics (newline-separated values add several at once) and an external DNS prerequisite, but says nothing about duplicate-domain handling or failure modes for a non-idempotent mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then batching, then the prerequisite. Every sentence carries information an agent can act on.

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?

With no output schema and a fully described 3-parameter schema, the description covers purpose, batch behavior, and the DNS prerequisite, which is enough to call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain around mutation semantics (duplicates, reversibility) that annotations partly mitigate.

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 100%, so id, domain, and webname are fully documented in the schema itself, including the newline/port formatting rule. The description's mention of newline separation merely echoes the schema, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 (bind) and resource (an extra domain to an existing site), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like site_remove_domain and site_create. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It conveys the context (adding an additional domain to an existing site) and states a prerequisite (the site name must also be added to DNS), but never explicitly says when to prefer this over alternatives such as site_create or site_remove_domain, nor any exclusions.

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