Create Domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose valuable behavior beyond the schema: the call returns DNS records and the agent is obliged to surface them to the user. However, it omits side-effect details an agent would want for a mutation — whether the domain starts in a pending/unverified state, whether it requires an existing account, or what happens on duplicate names.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return value, then the mandatory display requirement. Little waste; "in Emailit" is the only filler and it is trivial.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers the critical return information (DNS records for provider configuration), which is the main thing an agent could not infer. Minor gaps remain around the subsequent verification workflow and whether the domain is usable immediately after creation.

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%, with each of the three parameters documented in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new domain") and immediately describes the outcome (DNS records returned for verification). This clearly separates it from the list/get/update/delete/verify-domain siblings, though that differentiation comes mainly from the verb itself rather than explicit contrast.

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 imperative "Create a new domain" implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, on the alternative of update-domain, or on the follow-up verify-domain step. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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