add_monitored_domain

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. It explains the idempotent behavior explicitly ('Re-adding a domain they already monitor returns that domain rather than an error'), emphasizes exact record reproduction, and discloses that no DNS changes are performed. It also reveals privacy/security behavior: unverified or foreign domains are refused as not found and ownership is never disclosed.

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 efficient and every sentence earns its place: first the action and outputs, then idempotency, then the exactness constraint, and finally the human-approval requirement. No fluff or redundancy exists, and key operational constraints are front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values and still covers TXT record, DNS hosting location, guide link, and optional apply URL. It also explains idempotent behavior, domain verification requirements (via schema and text), and the mandatory human-approval step. An agent has everything it needs to invoke this tool 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of the 'domain' parameter, including constraints and refusal behavior. The description adds the 'signed-in user's' scoping and the purpose of the domain in the monitoring workflow, but it does not need to repeat parameter mechanics; a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 'Add' with a precise resource: 'a domain to the signed-in user's DNS Doctor monitoring.' It also enumerates the concrete outputs (ownership-check TXT record, DNS host, provider guide link, one-click apply URL), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that check propagation or validate records.

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 gives clear operational context: when adding a domain to monitoring, what the tool will return, and that a human must publish the record. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear and the required workflow is unambiguous.

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