agency-hosting_linkDomainToWebsiteV1

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

With no annotations, the description must clarify behavioral traits. It conveys a state change (linking) but omits prerequisites like domain ownership verification, reversibility, or side effects on existing traffic or DNS. The phrase 'so it can serve traffic' hints at outcome but lacks critical operational context.

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, compact sentence that directly states the action and purpose with no redundancy or filler. It earns its place without unnecessary details.

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 linking operation, the description and schema provide basic setup, but important context is missing: no mention of domain verification requirements, DNS propagation, failure modes, or relationship to other tools. Without an output schema, the description should clarify expected outcomes or prerequisites, which it does not.

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 100% for both parameters (domain and website_uid), each with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema already explains the parameters, a baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Links') and clearly identifies the resource ('domain to the specified Agency Plan website') and the outcome ('serve traffic for that domain'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unlinkDomainFromWebsiteV1 and changeWebsiteDomainV1.

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 when a domain should serve traffic for a website, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verifyDomainOwnership or changeWebsiteDomain. It provides minimal context for choosing among related domain operations.

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