domains_repair

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context (non-destructive to DNS) and an example, but lacks details on prerequisites, authorization, side effects, or success/failure responses. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

A single sentence efficiently communicates purpose, example, and key constraint. No wasted words; all information is 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and only two simple parameters, the description is largely complete. It clearly defines input and behavior. However, it lacks explicit outcome details (e.g., success/failure indicators) for a repair action.

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?

The schema covers both parameters (domain, project_id) with descriptions. The tool description adds meaningful domain context ('Run402-owned', 'SES receipt-rule recipients'), enhancing understanding 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 verb 'Repair' on the resource 'Run402-owned ProjectDomain infrastructure', provides a specific example ('missing SES receipt-rule recipients'), and specifies what it does NOT do ('without changing external DNS'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like domains_activate, domains_apply, etc.

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 this tool is for internal repairs without DNS changes but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like domains_ensure or domains_apply. No exclusions or context for selection are provided.

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