Connect your own domain

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, open-world, non-destructive operation, and the description adds real value on top: it returns exactly one DNS record, HTTPS is provisioned automatically, and the check flag polls liveness. It does not say what happens on verification failure, whether repeated calls without check create duplicates, or whether the Pro gate causes an error — modest gaps 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome, then the return value, then the follow-up call pattern. Every clause carries information: the 'Pro' tier flag, the HTTPS behavior, the single DNS record, and the liveness check.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, return value (one DNS record), and the second-call verification flow. It is close to complete; only error and idempotency behavior on repeat calls is unaddressed.

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 33%: 'site' is documented in the schema, 'check' is explained only in the description, and 'hostname' has no textual description in either place beyond a minLength constraint and the 'sale.korakicks.com' example. The description partly compensates by illustrating hostname format and check semantics, but multi-site selection ('site') is left entirely to 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 names a specific outcome (serving published pages on the user's own domain with automatic HTTPS) and gives a concrete example hostname, so the agent knows exactly what the tool accomplishes. It does not reference any sibling tool (e.g. publish_page) to differentiate, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 second call pattern is spelled out explicitly: 'Call again with check: true to see if it is live,' which is genuine when-to-use guidance for the two-phase workflow. It also implicitly scopes this to published pages and a paid tier ('Pro'). What is missing is any prerequisite or exclusion, such as domain ownership verification or what to do if the record never goes live.

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