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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: a matching record verifies the domain and starts routing players, a failing record is reported with a reason and does not remove an already verified domain, and persistently wrong records are revoked later by an hourly check. These details clarify the mutation's side effects, failure semantics, and deferred cleanup.

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 front-loaded with the action and usage context, then efficiently covers verification outcomes, failure behavior, revocation timing, and return fields. Every sentence adds useful operational detail.

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 single-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description explains the return shape and key side effects well. The remaining gap is that it does not describe the path.serverId argument, though the nested schema does provide a short description for serverId.

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?

The description does not mention the required serverId parameter or explain the nested path object. Although the input schema contains a description for serverId, the stated schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate and does not.

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: it looks up the public DNS record for a custom domain configured via updateServer, then updates its status. It also names the related sibling updateServer, so an agent can distinguish this verification action from the configuration action.

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 explicitly says to use this after the user changes DNS, which gives clear timing guidance. It does not describe exclusions or alternative verification tools, but none are present among the siblings.

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