claim_subdomain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions auth requirement and cost, but does not describe side effects (e.g., whether it replaces an existing subdomain), idempotency, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes key details (example, cost, auth). No wasted 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters, the description provides the core function but does not cover error cases (e.g., subdomain already taken), success confirmation, or differentiation from similar sibling tools. It is minimally adequate.

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 detailed descriptions for each parameter (pattern, example, optional flag). The tool description adds minimal extra context ('requires service_key auth' for project_id) but mostly repeats the schema info. 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Claim a custom subdomain') and resource ('point it at an existing deployment'), with a concrete example ('e.g. myapp.run402.com'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'add_custom_domain' which may involve different DNS setup.

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 notes 'Free, requires service_key auth' but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. While it implies usage for pointing a subdomain to a deployment, explicit guidance on when not to use it is missing.

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