agency-hosting_changeAgencyPlanWebsiteDomainV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the revert behavior ('Set domain to null to revert to the temporary domain'), which is a key trait. However, it does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects like the old domain being freed or propagation delays.

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 three sentences: purpose, parameter instruction, special case. It is front-loaded with the core action, uses no unnecessary words, and every sentence adds value.

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 simple mutation with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers the special revert behavior and parameter placement. It lacks context on prerequisites or what happens post-change, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 documentation covers all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds minimal value by indicating parameter placement (path vs body) but does not deepen understanding beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states the action and resource: 'Changes the primary domain for an Agency Plan website.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like link/unlink domain, parked domains, and other domain operations by specifying it's for the primary domain of an Agency Plan website.

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 usage by stating the action, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., linking a domain vs. changing the primary). No exclusions or context for selection are provided.

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