add_dns_domain

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is covered. The description adds the permission requirement and explicitly mentions the two side effects (creating a zone and adding a domain), which gives some additional behavioral signal. It does not elaborate on atomicity, reversibility, or failures, but for a create operation the disclosed behavior is adequate.

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 extremely concise and clear, with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence and the permission requirement in the second. There is no redundant text or filler. Every component serves a purpose.

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 a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the operation. It covers the core action, the side effect, and the required rights. It could have explicitly mentioned the confirm parameter, but that is already fully documented in the schema. The only minor gap is the lack of differentiation from add_dns_zone, which is not critical for completing the call.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (name and confirm). The description does not add extra meaning about parameter formats or the role of 'confirm', beyond what is present in the schema. Since the schema carries the full burden, the 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 states a specific action ('Создать DNS-зону и добавить домен в таблицу доменов') with a clear resource (DNS zone, domain) and even references the backend function (pdns/add_domain). It is understandable and distinguishes the operation from siblings like add_dns_zone or add_dns_record, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The resource and verb are specific enough to avoid confusion.

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 a necessary permission prerequisite ('Требует права pdns/edit'), which gives some usage context. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool instead of related tools such as add_dns_zone or add_dns_subdomain, nor does it give exclusion conditions. The usage context is only implied by the described action.

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