add web domain

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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds only the fact that the tool 'executes verified command v-add-web-domain,' which is useful context but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or result behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action before the implementation detail. The command reference adds useful context without bloating the text.

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 state-changing tool with six parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin for fully correct invocation. It omits parameter semantics, defaults behavior, and any cautions, though an output schema exists to cover return values.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the six parameters. Field names like 'domain' and 'user' are self-explanatory, but 'aliases,' 'proxyExtensions,' 'ip,' and 'restart' remain semantically underdocumented beyond type/default values.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a web domain') and names the underlying command, making the tool's role unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling add_* tools like add_dns_domain, add_mail_domain, and add_database because the resource type is explicitly web.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives and no exclusions or prerequisites. It relies entirely on the sibling names to imply that this is the web-domain creation operation.

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