add_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation ('Add') and mentions the output ('returns DNS records to configure'), but fails to disclose critical traits such as permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, followed by the key outcome. There is no wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (a write operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output but omits details on usage context, behavioral traits, and error handling. This results in a description that meets the bare minimum but leaves the agent with unanswered questions.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'domain' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('Add') and resource ('new sending domain'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'list_domains' or 'verify_domain' by focusing on creation rather than listing or verification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'verify_domain' or other domain-related operations. It mentions the return value ('returns DNS records to configure'), which hints at a post-creation step, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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