profiles_associate_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral outcome—'enables Customer Profiles... allowing contact data to flow into customer profiles automatically'—which is useful. However, it omits details about whether an existing association is replaced, required permissions, or idempotency, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the verb and resource, and the second adds a meaningful consequence. This is an appropriately sized, front-loaded description.

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 full schema coverage and the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It explains the main purpose and the automatic data-flow effect. It could add prerequisites like whether the domain must already exist, but it is largely complete for this configuration-style tool.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond mentioning 'domain' and 'instance' in prose, so it does not exceed the baseline provided by 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Associate a Customer Profiles domain with a Connect instance.' This clearly identifies both objects involved and distinguishes the tool from siblings like profiles_create_domain, profiles_list_domains, and cases_associate_domain.

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 explains the intended context: it enables Customer Profiles for the instance and allows contact data to flow automatically. This gives clear when-to-use framing, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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