Connect a custom domain

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

Annotations already mark idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds key behavioral traits: mode immutability ('delete and reconnect to change'), the DNS loop and verification process, and the side effect that the first live path domain becomes the default publish target. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, response structure, workflow steps, mode semantics, and idempotency. It is front-loaded with the core action and flows logically. Length is justified by the tool's complexity; no filler or redundant phrases.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description still explains the key response elements (CNAME record and `next` hints) and the full verification loop. It covers prerequisites (DNS provider tooling), mode differences, default publish behavior, and idempotency. For a multi-step domain connection tool, this is complete and well-rounded.

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% for both parameters, with detailed explanations of `mode` and `hostname`. The description adds some workflow context (e.g., response carries CNAME, first live path domain becomes default), but this info is largely already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does 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 opens with a specific verb ('Connect'), identifies the exact resource ('custom domain... to the dropthis account'), and scopes the action ('start the DNS loop'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like dropthis_domains_verify or dropthis_domains_list by focusing on the initial connection step.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and next-step guidance: if DNS provider tooling is available, create the CNAME yourself then call dropthis_domains_verify; otherwise show the user. It also advises re-calling verify until live and then publishing with `domain` set. This goes beyond basic usage to a full workflow with alternatives.

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