add dns domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it executes a verified command (v-add-dns-domain), which implies a known, tested operation. It doesn't disclose side effects like whether existing records are affected, whether the zone is immediately active, or if restart behavior applies. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds modest context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 sentences, no fluff. The core action is front-loaded. It could add a bit more parameter context without becoming bloated, but as-is it is efficient.

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 tool has 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema exists. The description is too thin to fully guide an agent: it doesn't explain what 'HestiaCP defaults' means, what the ip parameter is for, how nameservers are used, or what the output schema contains. For a create operation with multiple parameters, more context is needed.

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 not explain any parameters: user, domain, ip, restart, nameservers are all undocumented in the description. The schema provides types and constraints, but the description adds no meaning about what these parameters represent or how they relate to DNS zone creation. This is a significant gap.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('DNS zone'), and mentions it uses HestiaCP defaults. It distinguishes from siblings like add_dns_record (which adds a record, not a zone) and list_dns_domains (which lists). However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast with alternatives, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies usage: use this to create a DNS zone with HestiaCP defaults. It doesn't state when not to use it or mention alternatives like add_dns_record for adding records within an existing zone. The context is clear enough for a straightforward create operation, but no explicit guidance is given.

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