connect_godaddy

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious value beyond that: it warns that the API key and secret will be visible in the AI conversation context, a real security disclosure, and states the account/session prerequisite. It does not say whether existing credentials are replaced, but the extra context is substantive.

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 purpose, then the credential-visibility note, then access steps. Efficient and free of padding, though the ACCESS block reads slightly like procedural boilerplate and could be tighter.

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-connecting tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, security implications, and access prerequisites. It leaves some questions unanswered (what happens to prior credentials, whether the connection is validated), but the essentials needed to invoke it are present.

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% with all three parameters (id, api_key, api_secret) documented and required. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 (Connect), resource (GoDaddy API credentials), target (a domain), and the benefit (automated DNS record management) in one sentence. An agent can distinguish this from connect_cloudflare and connect_dns_provider purely from the provider name in the description.

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?

Provides access prerequisites (needs a Proof account; set PROOF_API_KEY or use start_login then re-call), which is useful context for invocation. However, it never explains when to choose this tool over sibling DNS-credential tools like connect_cloudflare, connect_dns_provider, or create_dns_credential, so selection guidance is only implied.

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