domains_ensure

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

Given no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returning checks, DNS records, and next actions, indicating verification steps. However, it does not mention potential destructiveness, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. First sentence states purpose, second states output. Slightly verbose but efficient and front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and return value. It is mostly complete but could mention prerequisites or when to use this tool vs other domain siblings.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing aspects (web, email, etc.) but mostly repeats schema field descriptions. It does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool creates or updates a project-scoped ProjectDomain desired state for web, email sending, inbound receive, mailbox addresses, and activation. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like domains_activate or domains_check.

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 use for setting or updating domain configuration but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like domains_activate or domains_apply. No exclusions or comparison to siblings.

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