add_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral consequence: the has_paywall flag determines whether archive search is attempted first or skipped. Still, it does not mention outcomes like duplicate-domain handling, idempotency, or permissions, leaving notable gaps.

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?

Three sentences: one for purpose, two for parameter behavior. No filler or repetition; front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 the core purpose and the key behavioral switch, and an output schema exists to document returns. It could be more complete regarding duplicate/format expectations, but it is adequate for this relatively simple CRUD tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains has_paywall semantics in detail and implies domain through the tool name/purpose, but notes is left undefined. This compensates for the two required parameters but not the optional one.

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 opens with 'Register a domain in the paywall knowledge base,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_paywall and search_archives. No ambiguity in intent.

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?

It provides clear conditional guidance: set has_paywall=true for paywalled sites (archives tried first) and false for non-paywalled sites (archive search skipped). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose add_domain over sibling tools like remove_paywall, so it lacks exclusions.

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