domain_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It only states 'Create a new domain' without disclosing side effects, authorization requirements, idempotency, or limits. For a creation tool, this is insufficient behavioral detail.

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?

Description is well-structured with bullet points and clear sections (Best for, Not for, Prerequisites, etc.). It is concise but informative. Minor noise from '[API]' prefix and emojis, but overall efficient.

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?

While the description includes prerequisites and next steps, it lacks context about the return value or success behavior (no output schema). For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, more detail about expected results or side effects would improve completeness.

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%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema already provides; thus, 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?

Clearly states 'Create a new domain for a service' with specific use cases (custom domains, service endpoints, HTTPS). Distinguishes from siblings like tcp_proxy_create by explicitly listing 'Not for' items.

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?

Provides explicit best-for/not-for sections, prerequisites (service_list, domain_check), alternatives (tcp_proxy_create), and next steps (domain_update). Guides when to use and when not.

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