impreza_change_domain

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

The description fully discloses the behavioral impact: regenerates Caddy fragment, zero-downtime reload, and fresh Let's Encrypt cert on first hit. It also states what is NOT touched (container/data), compensating for lack of annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each adding essential information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and subsequent sentences add technical detail and usage context. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and prerequisites. Without an output schema, it could mention what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator). However, for a simple mutation tool, the description is nearly complete.

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%, but the description adds the important constraint 'Must differ from the current one' for domain and clarifies 'no scheme'. Both parameters are well-described in schema, so description provides marginal extra value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Re-route') and resource ('RUNNING deployment to a new clearnet hostname'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like deploy or redeploy. It uniquely handles hostname changes without affecting container/data.

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 explicitly tells when to use (migrate from auto-subdomain to custom domain or rename) and the prerequisite (deployment must be in 'running' status). It provides clear context with no ambiguity.

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