Update domain

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

The description discloses the partial-update behavior ('Only the provided fields are changed'), which is valuable and not evident from the tool name. However, with no annotations, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects, leaving the safety and operational profile incomplete.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and the second sentence provides essential behavioral context without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it exceptionally 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?

For a moderately complex update tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description provides clear purpose and partial-update behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly. It lacks some context like error conditions or return values, but the schema and description together cover the essential operational needs.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the schema already explains parameter semantics. The description adds a high-level summary of parameter categories (catch-all, forward domain, limits) but does not add detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline expectation.

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 explicitly states 'Update a domain's settings' and lists the specific settings (catch-all address, forward domain, mailbox/alias/storage limits), making it clear what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_domain_brand, since the scope is core domain settings rather than branding.

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 implies use for updating domain settings but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. No explicit guidance such as 'for branding, use update_domain_brand' is provided, so usage context is only inferred.

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