Change Website Domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'change the primary domain' but does not disclose potential side effects: whether old domain becomes invalid, whether DNS records are updated automatically, whether there is downtime, or if verification is needed. For a mutating operation, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap, though the description is not misleading.

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 a single concise sentence that accurately captures the operation. It front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words, no redundant information.

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 operation is a domain change, the description is minimal but the schema covers all parameters. However, there is no information about prerequisites (e.g., domain must be verified), side effects, or error conditions. The sibling tools show related operations (link/unlink domain, DNS updates), and the absence of any caveats makes it less complete for a potentially risky operation.

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%, meaning every parameter has a description. The description adds a little: it tells the purpose of the parameters (current domain and new domain) in the context of 'primary domain change.' While the schema descriptions are minimal, the combination of schema and description is sufficient. The tool's description doesn't need to add more because the parameter names and descriptions are clear.

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: 'Change the primary domain of an Agency Plan website.' It uses a specific verb (change), identifies the resource (Agency Plan website's primary domain), and distinguishes itself from related domain tools like agency_website_link_domain/unlink_domain and domains_update_nameservers. However, it could be slightly more explicit about why this differs from link/unlink domain 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 implies usage: you use this when you need to change the primary domain of an Agency Plan website. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like link_domain/unlink_domain. Given the sibling context, a clear mention of alternative tools would improve guidance, but the core scenario is evident.

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