Start outgoing domain move

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

The description goes beyond the basic annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by explaining the move initiation process, subscription auto-resolution, and specific error status codes (404, 428). It also clarifies that the move is not immediate—requires acceptance by the receiving account. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, front-loading the primary purpose, and then elegantly organizes prerequisites and error scenarios in separate sentences. No redundant information is included, 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 two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the purpose, prerequisites, error handling, and the requirement for recipient acceptance. It could be improved by mentioning what the response looks like or that the move is pending until accepted, but the current detail is adequate for successful invocation.

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%—both 'domain' and 'new_customer_email' are fully described in the schema. The description does not add extra semantics beyond referencing them in context. Since the schema already covers them, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description neither enhances nor detracts.

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 ('Initiate a move'), the resource ('a specified domain'), and the destination ('to another Hostinger account'). It distinguishes from siblings like acceptIncomingDomainMoveV1 by focusing on the outgoing move initiation. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: 'hand a domain over to another Hostinger user'. It also states prerequisites (receiving account must exist and accept, domain must be active) and error conditions (404, 428). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools like cancelOutgoingDomainMoveV1, though the name and context make the distinction inferable.

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