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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it explains that the tool returns a TXT record, that the user must add it at their DNS provider, and that new URL creation requires explicit handover activation after verification. It also discloses downstream consequences and the specific return statuses domain_control_verification_required and domain_control_verification_not_needed, which an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations alone.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the following bullet list is used to present user-facing prerequisites that are directly relevant to correct invocation. Despite covering several constraints, every sentence earns its place by clarifying when the tool applies, what it returns, or which alternative to use.

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 complex domain-handover verification operation with no output schema, the description supplies the necessary preconditions, return behavior, user action required, inapplicable cases, and alternative tools. Combined with annotations covering safety and idempotency, nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 both siteId and url are already documented in the input schema. The description contextualizes the URL as a custom-domain URL managed or pending in another workspace, but it does not add syntax, format, or validation details beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: start explicit DNS control verification for a custom-domain URL managed or pending in another Convika workspace. It clearly distinguishes the operation from siblings such as set_site_url, setup_custom_domain, and activate_domain_handover by naming the exact scenario it serves.

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 gives explicit when-to-use constraints, including the prerequisite that the user must first be told about URL continuity, data non-migration, and handover activation requirements. It also names when not to use it, stating that for sites no other workspace holds or that this workspace already has, the tool returns domain_control_verification_not_needed and directs the agent to set_site_url or setup_custom_domain instead.

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