Update Domain Settings

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the change is verified against the Cube before being applied, and if the domain does not serve, the route is left on http. It also explains the derived port behavior and the TLS-related implications, giving the agent a clear picture of side effects and failure handling.

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 brief, front-loads the core action and scope, and avoids duplicating parameter-level detail that already exists in the schema. Every sentence 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 small parameter count, full schema coverage, and the behavioral detail provided in the description, the tool definition is effectively complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The verification behavior and failure fallback are particularly valuable for a mutating operation.

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 all parameters. The description adds some context about the origin scheme's role in the edge-to-Cube transport, but importantly, the schema itself already contains the detailed explanation of originScheme, so the description does not carry a significant additional burden.

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 identifies the action ('Change'), the resource ('a custom domain's proxy settings'), and the specific exposed capability ('origin scheme'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like create_domain, delete_domain, and list_domains without requiring schema inspection.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need to update a custom domain's proxy/origin scheme. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool should be used instead for related operations like creating or deleting a domain.

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