nemesis_provision_edge

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

The annotations already indicate not read-only and not destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it mentions the requirement for NEMESIS_API_KEY and explains the two possible return outcomes (nameservers vs TXT record) based on domain existence. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior and prerequisites.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a concise explanation, return values, and a prerequisite. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema) and the quality of annotations, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and what is required. No critical information for invocation is missing.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'domain' parameter, with a clear description. The tool description adds little extra parameter-level meaning, only referencing the domain in the context of existing vs. new domains. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 provisions a domain behind Nemesis Edge, a specific action with a clear resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the unique outcome (returning nameservers or TXT record) and the context of the positive-security DNS layer.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when putting a domain behind Nemesis Edge. It also explains the conditional behavior for existing domains via the return value note. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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