contabo_domains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the server is currently read-only and writes are rejected until CONTABO_ENABLE_WRITES=1, and it marks the specific operations carrying destructive semantics. That runtime gate and per-operation risk labeling are genuinely useful and not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Purpose and the read-only caveat are front-loaded, followed by a scannable operation list, which fits a dispatcher tool. The 18-line enumeration is dense but each line earns its place by flagging operation name and destructive status; structure is sound with minimal waste.

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 a router with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: operation inventory, destructive flags, the write-gate caveat, and a pointer to contabo_reference for parameters. The cross-tool dependency for parameter docs is the only mild gap, but the schema itself is fully described.

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 per-operation schemas already document every parameter. The description only states that parameters are validated per operation and defers full documentation to contabo_reference, adding no syntax or format detail itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource precisely ("Contabo domains and contact handles") and enumerates all 18 operations, so an agent knows exactly what scope this tool covers versus siblings like contabo_dns or contabo_instances. It is clear but not maximally differentiated — it doesn't state what distinguishes domain handling from, e.g., DNS management.

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?

It gives the key routing rule ("choose exactly one 'operation'; every operation has its own parameter set") and flags which operations are destructive, which is real guidance for a dispatcher. However, it offers no when-to-use / when-not-to-use framing against sibling tools, leaving the choice between this and other Contabo tools implied rather than stated.

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