upsert_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the upsert behavior and that the existing description is preserved if omitted, adding useful behavioral nuance. However, it does not mention what happens to other fields, error conditions, or prerequisites, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core upsert behavior and a key preservation nuance. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It fails to explain the source and dataType parameters, the relationship between source and the domain, or how updates handle unspecified fields beyond description. An agent would likely need additional details to invoke the tool correctly.

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 20%, and the tool description compensates by explaining name (upsert key), domainId (update trigger), and description (preserved). However, source and dataType are not addressed in the description, and dataType lacks any schema description, leaving a meaningful gap in parameter understanding.

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 that the tool creates a domain by name (upsert) or updates one when a domainId is given. This clearly defines the verb, resource, and the distinguishing condition between create and update, making it distinct from sibling tools like list_domains or delete_domain.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: when you have a domain name to upsert or a domainId to update. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the conditional semantics are self-explanatory. This earns a 4 due to the absence of explicit alternatives.

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