create_dns_credential

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the credentials will be exposed in the AI conversation context, which is a material security disclosure an agent should surface. It still omits what happens if credentials already exist for a provider (overwrite vs. error) and what the call returns.

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 the first sentence and the security warning immediately follows. The ACCESS block is slightly verbose but every clause is actionable; the trailing 'then call this tool again' is a bit awkward yet clear.

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 two-parameter secret-storing mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth prerequisites, and the key risk. The remaining gaps — overwrite semantics for an existing provider credential and the return value/shape — are modest but real.

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% and the schema itself documents both 'provider' (with examples) and the free-form 'credentials' map. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, such as which key names a given provider expects, so the baseline 3 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Store DNS provider credentials') and states the purpose ('for automated domain verification'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from near-siblings like connect_dns_provider, connect_cloudflare, or add_verification_provider, so an agent cannot tell which to pick without opening schemas.

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?

It supplies real prerequisite guidance (needs a Proof account; set PROOF_API_KEY and restart, or sign in via start_login) which tells the agent how to unblock the call. It never states when to use this tool instead of the connect_* / add_verification_provider siblings, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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