Update a domain

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'authenticated workspace' scope and says nothing about what fields get overwritten, reversibility, or the confirm requirement for this mutation.

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 no padding or redundancy. Efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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 12-parameter destructive mutation with a nested payload object, a payload_file alternative, and a confirm requirement, one bare sentence is inadequate. The agent must reverse-engineer mutation behavior and payload strategy entirely from the schema.

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%, so the schema documents the 12 parameters (payload, payload_file, confirm, account, etc.) thoroughly. The description adds no param meaning beyond that, which is the baseline expectation when coverage is this high.

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 clear verb+resource ('Update a domain') and adds scope ('for the authenticated workspace'). However, it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like create_domain, delete_domain, or register_domain beyond the verb.

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 indication of when to use this versus create_domain/delete_domain/register_domain, no prerequisites, and no mention that a confirm flag or payload strategy is required. The agent gets no routing guidance.

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