agency-hosting_changeWebsiteDomainV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It mentions the special case of setting 'domain' to null to revert to the temporary domain, but does not disclose other important behaviors such as whether the change is irreversible, any propagation delays, or impact on existing domain settings. This is insufficient 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 description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information without any fluff or redundancy. The structure is ideal.

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 operation with three well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to provide the parameters, and a special case for reverting. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, even though it could benefit from a note on side effects. The absence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the implementation detail that the current domain is passed in the path, which is not evident from the schema, but it also repeats the null/revert behavior already described in the schema. The value added beyond schema is minimal.

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 tool's purpose: 'Changes the primary domain for an Agency Plan website.' This is a specific verb (change) and resource (primary domain for an Agency Plan website), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'linkDomainToWebsite' or 'unlinkDomainFromWebsite'.

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 gives practical instructions for using the tool ('Provide the current domain in the path and the new domain in the request body'), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The context is clear but lacks guidance on when not to use it.

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