Register a domain

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, and readOnly=false, so the agent knows the mutation profile. The description adds the Enterprise-plan gating, which is real context, but says nothing about irreversibility, what confirm does, or side effects.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the plan constraint following. Appropriately sized for the tool.

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 with a nested payload object, no output schema, and a near-duplicate sibling (create_domain), the description is thin. The schema carries most of the load, but the lack of sibling differentiation leaves a real 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 the schema fully documents domain, account, confirm, payload, and payload_file. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Register a domain') and scopes it to the authenticated workspace. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling create_domain, so an agent cannot tell which one to pick without opening both 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?

It states an eligibility constraint ('Only available for Enterprise Plans'), which is useful context, but gives no when-to-use guidance or alternative (e.g. create_domain, update_domain). Usage must be inferred from the name.

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