domains_rejectIncomingDomainMoveV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the domain remains with the initiating account and accepted moves cannot later be rejected. It does not discuss error states or reversibility, but the essential state change is clearly communicated.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action, the second explains the postcondition, and the third offers usage direction. No redundant filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, when to use it, and a critical state constraint. Minor gaps like expected response format or handling of invalid domains do not significantly detract from completeness.

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 schema already describes the only parameter as 'Domain name' with 100% coverage. The description adds 'specified domain' but no additional format, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Reject an incoming move for a specified domain,' a specific verb-resource pairing that clearly distinguishes this from the sibling accept tool. The additional effect ('The domain stays in the account which initiated the move') reinforces the purpose.

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 explicitly tells when to use it: 'Use this endpoint to decline a domain you do not want to take over.' It also notes a constraint ('Moves you have already accepted cannot be rejected anymore'), offering practical guidance. It does not name the alternative accept endpoint, but the context makes it obvious.

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