domains_ensure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool creates or updates (mutates) and returns an aggregate with checks, DNS records, and next actions. However, it lacks details on prerequisites, permissions, idempotency, error cases, or side effects, which are important 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?

The description is two sentences long—front-loaded with the purpose and ending with the return value. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., breaking out return details separately). Still, it earns a high score.

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 complexity of the tool (3 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable overview. It explains the output (aggregate with checks, DNS records, next actions) but does not elaborate on the structure of the 'desired' object beyond the listed categories. Some agent needs may require more detail.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing the categories within the 'desired' object (web, email.send, etc.), but this largely overlaps with the schema's description of 'desired'. The value added is marginal.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create or update') and resource ('project-scoped ProjectDomain desired state'), and lists the aspects covered (web, email sending, inbound receive, mailbox addresses, activation). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like domains_activate or domains_check, which serve different purposes.

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 the tool is used to set the desired state for multiple domain aspects at once, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like domains_activate or domains_apply. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving usage guidance vague.

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