arvan_create_domain

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds 'Add' (creation) context but no further behavioral details like required permissions, side effects, or error states. It does not go beyond what annotations already convey.

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?

Two sentences plus arg list, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence is informative and concise.

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?

No output schema is present, but the description does not mention return values, success/failure indicators, or idempotency (though annotations cover the latter). For a simple creation tool, it is adequate but could be more complete with expected output.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful examples: 'domain' gets an example 'example.com', and 'extra' is explained as 'Additional fields to merge into the request body (e.g. plan)'. This compensates for the schema gap well.

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 'Add a domain to the CDN / Cloud DNS', specifying the verb, resource, and context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like arvan_create_dns_record (adds records to existing domain) and arvan_get_domain (retrieves details).

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 calls this an 'onboarding call', implying it's a first step, but does not explicitly explain when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., arvan_import_dns_zone for zone import). No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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