create_domain

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

Annotations already denote a mutation (readOnlyHint=false). Description adds that it returns DNS records needed for verification, providing value beyond annotations. Could mention pending state or authentication needs.

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?

Two succinct sentences. First states action, second states output. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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?

Covers purpose and output. Lacks mention of pending state or necessity to verify later, but with sibling tools, agents can infer. Reasonably complete for a creation tool without output schema.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters described). Description does not add new parameter-level info but provides context about output (DNS records). Baseline score is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('sending domain'), clearly states the action and outputs (DNS records), and distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_domain or delete_domain.

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?

Implicitly indicates this is the initial step before verification, but does not explicitly mention when to use vs. alternatives or prerequisites. Still clear enough for an agent to infer usage context.

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