Create a domain

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never mentions the required `confirm` flag, slug uniqueness, side effects such as archiving, or the payload/body-flag exclusivity rules.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on insufficiency for a 12-parameter destructive tool rather than being a fault of structure.

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 zero-required, 12-parameter, nested-object, destructive mutation with no output schema, one sentence is inadequate. It omits the confirm requirement, the payload-vs-flags exclusivity constraint, and any notion of what a domain represents or what creating one affects.

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 92% across 12 parameters, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics (slug, logo, archived, redirect URLs, confirm, payload_file, etc.). The description adds no parameter meaning, which is the baseline 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a domain') plus a scope qualifier ('for the authenticated workspace'), so the intent is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling domain tools — register_domain, update_domain, delete_domain — which an agent must distinguish before calling.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no alternatives named. The mention of 'authenticated workspace' hints at auth scope but does not tell the agent when to pick create_domain over register_domain or how it relates to list_domains/update_domain.

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