domains_repair

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adequately discloses that the tool repairs infrastructure without modifying external DNS. It does not detail potential side effects or permissions, but the main behavioral scope is transparent.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys action, scope, constraints, and example without any filler. Every part earns its place.

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 simplicity of the input schema (two parameters) and absence of output schema, the description provides sufficient context about purpose and constraints. Could benefit from mentioning return type or error handling, but overall complete for this 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (domain and project_id). The description adds context about the repair scenario but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states the action (repair), specific context (Run402-owned ProjectDomain infrastructure), provides an example (missing SES receipt-rule recipients), and a key constraint (without changing external DNS), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like domains_check or domains_apply.

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 when to use (for repair scenarios) and what it does not do (no external DNS changes), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the context is sufficiently clear for an agent.

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