claim_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that this is a POST request and that it returns a TXT record to add, which is meaningful. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether the claim creates a pending state, authentication requirements, or what happens after the TXT record is added.

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 a single, efficient sentence. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the endpoint and return value, with no wasted words or redundant restatements.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the action, the endpoint, and the return value. It could be improved by noting the natural next step with verify_domain_claim or get_domain_claim, but that is not necessary to correctly invoke the tool.

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 input schema already documents both parameters ('name' and 'region'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, keeping this at the baseline score.

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 ('Claim'), a clear resource ('a domain already verified elsewhere'), and includes the HTTP endpoint. It differentiates this from sibling tools like verify_domain by explicitly scoping to domains that have already been verified elsewhere.

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 phrase 'already verified elsewhere' gives clear situational context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as using verify_domain when the domain is not verified elsewhere, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the intended use case.

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