Mint a hostname

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the address class is fixed and crossing later is refused, that newly minted names go 'pending' then 'live' within a minute, and that DNSMint may auto-pick domain/subdomain or resolve target URLs. This is rich behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured into short, purposeful paragraphs. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage context, behavioral constraints, and lifecycle information. Every sentence contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, key constraints, and lifecycle. It doesn't explicitly describe the response format beyond implying a hostname is returned, but since no output schema exists and the description mentions 'get back a stable hostname,' it is reasonably complete for an agent to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance not in the schema, such as 'pass the address the machine will actually serve on' (ip) and the fixed address class implication. However, most parameter specifics (omitted domain picks, subdomain opaque, certificate types) are already in the schema, so the incremental value is moderate.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Register an address and get back a stable hostname that survives the address changing.' It specifies the resource (hostname) and the purpose (naming a machine or agent). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on creation (mint) versus management (list, get, repoint, diagnose), even though it doesn't name them 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?

The description explicitly states when to use it: 'This is the tool to use when a machine or agent needs a name.' It also provides constraints like 'pass the address the machine will actually serve on' and clarifies that names below a hostname cannot be minted. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the full 'when-not' guidance.

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