connect_dns_provider

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context: credentials will be exposed in conversation context, plus the auth/session prerequisite. It stops short of saying what gets persisted or how to reverse the connection, but the security warning is real value beyond the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, the credential-exposure warning follows immediately, and the access block is clearly separated. Slightly more prose than strictly necessary but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive, credential-bearing mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the security caveat, and the auth prerequisite. It could say more about what state is created or whether the connection is reversible, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 id, provider, and credentials are already documented. The description only restates that credentials are provider-specific key-value pairs, adding no format, naming, or validation detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Connect a ... DNS provider to a domain') and the word 'generic' distinguishes it from the provider-specific siblings connect_cloudflare and connect_godaddy. An agent can identify the operation and its scope without opening the schema.

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 ACCESS block gives concrete prerequisite handling (set PROOF_API_KEY, or use start_login then retry), which is useful. However it never says when to choose this tool over the specific-provider siblings like connect_cloudflare/connect_godaddy, so alternative selection is only implied by the word 'generic'.

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