Reject incoming domain move

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the domain stays in the account that initiated the move, and accepted moves can no longer be rejected. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the annotations already flag this as destructive and non-read-only, lowering the burden on the description.

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-loads the core operation, then adds the effect and limitation. The final sentence 'Use this endpoint to decline...' is slightly redundant with the first sentence, but it is short and reinforces intent.

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 one-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, outcome, and a critical state limitation. It could mention prerequisites such as a pending incoming move or describe the response, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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 'domain' parameter is already described as 'Domain name'. The description adds no additional format, validation, or syntax details, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Reject') and the resource ('an incoming move for a specified domain'). The phrase 'decline a domain you do not want to take over' reinforces the purpose and separates it from accepting or outgoing move operations.

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 says to use this endpoint when declining a domain you do not want to take over. It also gives a key exclusion: moves already accepted cannot be rejected. It doesn't name sibling tools like domains_acceptIncomingDomainMoveV1, but the intended usage is clear enough.

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