create_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the required follow-up sequence (DNS records, verification), which is critical context. It does not mention potential side effects like cost or errors, but the workflow transparency is valuable.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise numbered list of required next steps and an Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return values. It covers the creation workflow and required post-steps, making it contextually complete for a create operation. Minor gaps like prerequisites or failure handling exist, but they are implied.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining 'name' with a domain example and 'region' as an optional AWS region with examples. This adds meaning well beyond the raw schema types and required list.

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 states 'Create a new custom email domain' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_domain_records and verify_domain. The purpose is immediately obvious.

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 a clear post-creation workflow: call get_domain_records, add DNS records, then verify_domain. This implies this tool is the initial step, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives beyond the follow-up steps.

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