adm_domain_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add a domain to NS servers' conveys the basic action, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, prerequisites, whether the action is reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutating DNS operation, this leaves meaningful behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently captures the action, target resource, and domain context, earning its place without padding.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), so the description plus schema cover the basic invocation. However, the definition lacks usage differentiation from similar tools and omits behavioral details such as side effects or response behavior. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent deciding between this and related DNS tools.

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%, and the single parameter domain_name is already documented as 'Domain name to add' in the schema. The description adds only the context that the domain is being added to NS servers, but does not provide extra format, validation, or usage detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high 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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a domain to NS servers'), with a clarifying parenthetical ('for DNS management') that distinguishes it from related tools like adm_dns_add (DNS records) and adm_mail_domains (mail domains). It clearly states what the tool does at a domain level rather than a record level.

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 parenthetical 'for DNS management' implies the intended context, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as adm_dns_add, adm_domain_check, or adm_domain_zones. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing statements, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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