Update a custom domain

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

Beyond annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds critical behavioral context: 'Changes ROUTING only' clarifies it doesn't modify content, and 'Mode is immutable' discloses a permanent characteristic. This fully discloses the tool's behavior and limitations without contradicting 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 packs multiple pieces of information (purpose, domain types, parameter conditions, alternatives, immutability) into a compact yet readable structure. Each sentence earns its place and the most important distinction (routing vs content) is 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?

Given the tool's two modes and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all essential context: what changes (routing), what doesn't (content), the mode immutability constraint, and valid input formats. It also differentiates from siblings, making it complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that `drop_id` is for dedicated domains and `default` is for path domains, and that `domain` accepts either the `dom_…` id or hostname. This goes beyond the schema descriptions by clarifying the domain-type-specific usage.

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 dual purpose: repointing dedicated domains via `drop_id` and setting/clearing path domains as default via `default`. It uses specific verbs ('Repoint', 'set/clear') and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that `dropthis_update_content` handles content changes.

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 guidance: use for routing only, not for content changes. It explicitly names the alternative (`dropthis_update_content`) and adds a constraint ('Mode is immutable: delete and reconnect to change it'), giving clear direction on when and how to use the tool.

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