domain_push

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a prerequisite and the core action (transfer), but does not disclose potential side effects, whether the transfer is immediate or requires approval, fees, or what the outcome looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains zero redundant wording. Every piece of information (action and prerequisite) earns its place.

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?

Given the simple schema and lack of annotations, the description is moderately complete. It states the purpose and a key prerequisite, but it does not explain expected outcomes, timing, or any caveats for the transfer. For a mutation tool, this leaves some gaps, though the low parameter count reduces the need for extensive detail.

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 already documents both parameters (domain and destination) with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action: 'Push (transfer) a domain to another Internet.bs account.' It identifies the specific verb (push/transfer), resource (domain), and destination (Internet.bs account). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like domain_trade, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides a prerequisite ('The recipient must have an Internet.bs account') which implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like transfer_initiate or domain_trade. The guidance is mostly implied rather than direct.

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