update_origin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden. It discloses the mutation target and the returned fields (status, updated_at), but says nothing about required auth/ownership of the provision, whether the change is reversible, propagation delay, or impact on live traffic. Adequate but notably thin for a write operation.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then usage context, then args and returns in a scannable layout. Every sentence earns its place; the Returns block is genuinely additive given there is no output schema.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers params and return fields but omits permission requirements, error conditions, and reversibility. It is workable but leaves real gaps an agent would want before invoking a write.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains provision_id identifies the domain to update and gives a concrete example format for new_origin_url. Both required parameters gain meaning beyond the bare string types, though valid-scheme/trailing-slash rules are not covered.

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 first sentence gives a clear verb+resource pair ('Change the origin/target URL for an existing domain'), which an agent can map to a distinct operation. It does not explicitly name how it differs from close siblings like update_website or update_website_from_url, leaving that separation to inference.

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?

'Use this when the user redeploys their site to a new URL and wants the custom domain to point to the new location' gives a concrete triggering scenario. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. re-provisioning vs. updating), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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