domains_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions safety and provider-managed nature, and distinguishes Manual-DNS behavior. But it lacks details on what happens without authority, what the 'typed next action' is, or potential side effects.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second covers an important exception. Could be slightly more structured but is effective.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return values more thoroughly. It mentions 'typed next action' but doesn't clarify what that entails. Missing details on error cases or what 'safe' means in practice.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'provider-managed', 'Manual-DNS') not tied to parameters, so it does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 applies safe provider-managed ProjectDomain changes when authority is available. It distinguishes behavior for Manual-DNS domains, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 (when authority is available) and notes that Manual-DNS domains return a typed next action instead of mutating DNS. However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings like domains_ensure or domains_activate, leaving usage boundaries unclear.

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