add_verification_provider

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does a good job: it warns that credentials will be visible in the AI conversation context and explains the access/session requirement. It falls short of fully describing the outcome or failure behavior, but the key side-effect and prerequisite are disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated first, followed by a high-value privacy warning and the access prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 fully documented schema, the description provides enough context for correct invocation, including prerequisites and a notable privacy concern. It could be slightly stronger by pointing to get_dns_providers or describing the expected result, but those are minor omissions rather than critical gaps.

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 input schema already covers all three parameters with clear descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds only the context that the provider is for verification and that credentials are sensitive, which is helpful but does not materially expand parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states the action ('Add an additional DNS provider') and the target resource ('already-verified domain'), which makes the tool's purpose easy to understand. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like connect_dns_provider, so it misses the strongest form of differentiation.

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 description provides clear context: this tool is for already-verified domains and requires a Proof account, with explicit setup or login instructions. It does not include when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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