dns_create_domain

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure load. It merely states 'Create a new DNS domain' and does not explain side effects like duplicate-domain handling, DNS propagation, dependency on an existing domain, or permission requirements. The action is effectively restating the tool name rather than disclosing behavior beyond it.

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 compact: one purpose sentence, four argument bullets, and a single return line. It avoids unnecessary verbiage and gets to the point, though including ctx as an arg could confuse users expecting only the schema parameters. Overall, it is appropriately sized and 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?

The presence of an output schema relieves the need to describe return values in detail, and the description gives a brief 'Created domain information' line. However, with no annotations, a creation workflow is incomplete without noting preconditions or expected consequences (e.g., whether the domain must be unique, whether auth is required, whether the domain becomes immediately usable). It is adequate for a simple create but leaves notable gaps for an agent operating autonomously.

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 properties have no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description is the only added semantic source. It explains domain as 'The domain name to create', ip as 'The default IP address', and dns_sec with accepted values and a default. The ctx argument is described as a FastMCP context side-channel, adding clarity even though it is not in the schema. A little more detail on format or constraints would make it 5.

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 opening line 'Create a new DNS domain' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like dns_list_domains, dns_get_domain, dns_delete_domain, and dns_create_record. The name is reinforced by the description, leaving no ambiguity about its core 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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dns_import_zone_file or dns_create_record. There are no preconditions, no implied ordering, and no mention of cases where a different tool should be chosen. An agent is left to infer usage solely from the verb and resource.

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