delegate_nameservers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does well: it warns that existing AgentDomains records, forwards, and proxies will no longer apply once delegation is active. It also states the requirement of at least two nameservers, which adds operational expectations beyond a simple tool name.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and uses every sentence to convey material information: control shift, behavior change, and input requirement. No repetition or filler.

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 destructive-ish but reversible action, the description explains the concrete consequences and the minimum input, and the schema covers all parameter details. It does not state whether delegation can be undone, but given the strength of the other context, this is a relatively minor gap.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented meaningfully in the schema. The description does little to add semantic value beyond reinforcing the 'at least two nameservers' rule, which was already present in the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Delegate the subdomain to your own nameservers') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating AgentDomains stops answering and existing records/forwards/proxies no longer apply. This makes the tool's unique role obvious without needing to inspect other schemas.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when you want full control via your own nameservers rather than using AgentDomains' built-in DNS, forwards, or proxies. It does not explicitly name alternative tools as recommendations, but the behavior contrast with those futures is enough to infer the choice.

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