wafle_domains_add

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

Annotations only declare non-idempotence and non-destructiveness; the description adds valuable behavioral context: it generates a verification_token, returns 3 alternative DNS instructions, and lists validation constraints (lowercase FQDN, no IPs/wildcards, no .wafle.click subdomains, max 10 domains). It also discloses the asynchronous verification path via cron. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact yet information-dense. The first sentence states the primary action, the second explains the follow-up workflow, and the third lists validation rules. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy 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 creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow, return value (DNS instructions), and validation rules. It also references the sibling wafle_domains_verify for the next step. It does not specify the exact response payload shape or behavior on duplicate domains, but that is not essential given the schema and sibling context.

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?

The input schema already documents all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant validation constraints not present in the schema (e.g., no wildcards, no IPs, no .wafle.click subdomains, max 10 active domains), which helps the agent craft valid requests. It does not deeply explain enum interactions, but the schema's param descriptions already cover those.

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 opens with 'Attach a new custom domain... to a wafle store', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the tool's function. It further differentiates from sibling wafle_domains_verify by explaining the creation-then-verification workflow. The example domain and mention of DNS instructions make the purpose concrete and unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs the tenant to update DNS and then call `wafle_domains_verify` or wait for the 5-min cron, providing clear post-creation steps and an alternative. It does not explicitly contrast with wafle_domains_list or wafle_domains_status, but the creation vs. verification distinction is clear enough for selection.

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