Add domain root to config

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

Annotations indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) but not destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds key behaviors beyond annotations: it infers the remote path from the server username if not specified, verifies the directory exists via SFTP, and saves to the config file. This gives the agent insight into side effects and failure modes.

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 sentence that packs all essential information—purpose, behavioral details, and default behavior—without fluff. Every phrase adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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 tool has a relative simple role, the description covers the main operation, default behavior, verification step, and persistence. It does not mention error cases or interaction with existing entries, but the rich schema and annotations reduce the need for exhaustive detail. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 minimal extra meaning for parameters—it mentions the inference of the remote path (relevant to 'root') and verification via SFTP, which enriches the schema but does not significantly change understanding of parameters like 'domain', 'dry_run', or 'server_id'.

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 'Register' with a clear resource ('a new domain root') and context ('for a server profile'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_roots and discover_roots by focusing on the add operation.

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 provides clear context: it is for registering a new domain root and verifies the directory existence, implying it is for adding rather than listing or discovering. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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