Attach domain

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

Although annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, the description adds real behavioral detail the annotations cannot convey: the refused-and-listed conflict case, force:true as the override, that DNS is auto-configured for Lizard-owned domains but returned as manual records otherwise, and that the call mints a fresh subdomain when repeated without hostname. It also tells the agent what the response contains, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 dense paragraph, but front-loaded with the fact that changes the decision (the domain already exists) before the when-to-call rules, the conflict behavior, and the follow-up step. No filler sentences; every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety-critical cases (refusal, force override, DNS side effects, verification follow-up) and even summarizes response contents. The remaining gap is `port`, which neither description nor schema explains, so an agent cannot tell when to supply it.

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 only 40%, so the description carries extra burden. It meaningfully explains hostname (custom vs. generated) and force (replace conflicting records), but `port` is completely undocumented anywhere, and project/service are only implied by the required-parameter list. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (attach a domain) and immediately scopes it against the automatic *.onlizard.com domain that every app already has. It distinguishes itself cleanly from siblings like domain_verify, domain_delete, and domain_dns_update by describing both the custom-hostname and the generate-subdomain modes.

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?

Explicit when/when-not: only call when the user explicitly wants a custom domain, or when service_show shows no domain at all, and it tells the agent to read service_show's `domain` field first rather than guessing a hostname. It also names the downstream alternative (domain_verify) for the manual-DNS path and warns that repeat calls without hostname create yet another subdomain instead of returning the existing one.

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