domains_startOutgoingDomainMoveV1

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 important behaviors: the receiving account must already exist and accept the move, domain must be active, subscription is resolved automatically, and specific error codes for missing subscription (404) and premium protection (428). This gives the agent a solid understanding of preconditions and failure modes, though it stops short of describing the pending state or subsequent steps.

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 five sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, recipient requirement, domain condition, subscription resolution, and premium protection. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundancy with the schema. Could be slightly tighter, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no output schema, and absent annotations, the description covers essential context: what the action does, prerequisites, and failure modes. It implies a pending state via 'before the domain changes hands' and provides enough information for correct invocation. Some details like how to monitor or cancel the move are not mentioned, but they are handled by sibling tools.

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 both parameters have basic descriptions. The tool description adds behavioral context beyond the schema: 'new_customer_email' is tied to a receiving account that must already exist and accept the move, and 'domain' must be active. This adds meaningful semantics that help parameter interpretation.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Initiate a move of a specified domain to another Hostinger account.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling operations like cancelOutgoingDomainMove and acceptIncomingDomainMove by stating its role in handovers. The closing sentence 'Use this endpoint to hand a domain over to another Hostinger user' reinforces the unique 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 provides clear usage context: prerequisites (receiving account must exist and accept, domain must be active), automatic subscription resolution, and rejection cases (404/428). It explicitly says 'Use this endpoint' for handovers. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the conditions and purpose make when-to-use clear enough without exclusions.

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