Create Parked Domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action, without mentioning whether the operation is mutating, if it requires verification, any side effects, or the response structure. The vagueness of 'park' adds little insight.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, it is almost too terse, lacking any structural elaboration. It earns a 4 for extreme brevity but loses a point for missing an opportunity to add helpful context.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the concept of a parked domain, prerequisites, or success/failure behavior. For a create operation with 3 required parameters, this is a notable gap.

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 all three parameters are already documented (username, domain, parked_domain). The description contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Park a domain') and the target ('on a website'), which identifies the tool's core purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like hosting_parked_list and hosting_parked_delete by focusing on creation, though it could be more explicit about 'parked domain' semantics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., subdomain creation, domain forwarding). There are no prerequisites, examples, or exclusion scenarios, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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