add_dns_domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write nature is covered. The description adds the required authorization scope (pdns/edit), which is not derivable from annotations or schema and is exactly the kind of extra context that matters for a mutating call.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action first and the permission requirement second; nothing is wasted. The only structural flaw is that the text is delivered as mojibake, which harms legibility even though the underlying content is well organized.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the endpoint and the required permission, which is enough for correct invocation. It would be complete at 5 if it clarified the relationship to add_dns_zone and the failure mode when the domain already exists.

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% — both 'name' (with an example.com example) and 'confirm' (must be true to run) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond that, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Создать DNS-зону и добавить домен в таблицу доменов') and even names the underlying endpoint (pdns/add_domain), so the agent knows exactly what is created. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling add_dns_zone, and the dual phrasing ('create a DNS zone' + 'add a domain') creates ambiguity about which sibling to pick.

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 supplies a concrete precondition — the caller needs the pdns/edit permission — which is genuine usage guidance. It stops short of saying when to use this versus add_dns_zone, add_dns_record, or add_dns_subdomain, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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