update_domain_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not state whether this is a partial or full update, what happens to omitted settings, whether changes are reversible, or what permissions beyond ownership are required. The 'owned domain' phrase hints at an authorization requirement, but the disclosure is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences are almost entirely redundant, with the second restating the first while adding only 'existing owned domain'. Important details are absent rather than front-loaded, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 mutation tool with four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not identify the settings being updated or explain the boolean flags, leaving an agent unable to invoke the tool correctly without guessing.

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 0% across four parameters, and the description does not mention any parameter names or meanings. The booleans recheckDns, allowAccountReset, and symbolicSubaddressing and the required name parameter receive no explanation, leaving the schema entirely undocumented.

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 names a verb and resource ('Updates settings for a domain'), but this largely restates the tool name update_domain_settings rather than adding distinguishing detail. The second sentence adds a constraint ('existing owned domain') but does not specify which settings or how it differs from add_domain, delete_domain, or other domain siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_domain, delete_domain, or list_domains. The phrase 'existing owned domain' implies a prerequisite, but no conditions, exclusions, or sibling references are provided.

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