add-domain

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the 5-domain limit, automatic HTTPS via Let's Encrypt, the specific DNS record types and IP/CNAME values, and the domain status lifecycle. Annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent, and the description enriches the agent's understanding of side effects, return values, and provisioning 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 efficient: a single paragraph of four sentences, each adding unique value. It front-loads the purpose, then concisely covers constraints, DNS instructions, and status lifecycle. No redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, straightforward mutation), the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, constraints (5 domains, automatic HTTPS), return value (DNS instructions), and status progression. The agent can reliably decide to invoke and understand the outcome. The only minor gap is error handling, but the idempotentHint annotation covers safety.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the parameter descriptions. It explains how the domain parameter determines whether an A record (for apex) or CNAME record (for subdomain) is required, provides the exact IP address and CNAME format, and clarifies the return value contains DNS setup instructions. This goes well beyond the schema's example 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 explicitly states 'Add a custom domain to a sota.io project' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list-domains, get-domain, and remove-domain by clearly indicating this is the creation operation, and provides additional context about constraints and return value.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context 'Each project supports up to 5 custom domains' implies a limitation but does not directly guide the agent on when to choose add-domain over other domain-related tools. Usage is implied by the name and description, but not explicitly guided.

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