add_verification_provider

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a critical behavioral warning the annotations don't: credentials will be visible in AI conversation context, which is a real security disclosure useful to the agent. It also explains the auth flow. Missing detail on what the mutation does to existing providers, but strong overall.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the security note and access info. Slightly more verbose on auth mechanics than necessary but every sentence carries weight.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers access, precondition, and the credential-visibility caveat. Doesn't describe return values or effect on existing providers, but adequately complete for the agent to call it.

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 documents id, provider, and credentials. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (Add), resource (DNS provider for verification), and scope (to an already-verified domain). This distinguishes it from siblings like connect_dns_provider and verify_domain_with_credentials.

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?

Specifies the precondition (an already-verified domain) and access requirements, which tells the agent when this applies. However, it doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use instead when the domain isn't yet verified.

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