trigger_verification

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/non-destructive profile is already covered. The description adds genuine value with the auth precondition (needs a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY + restart) and the negative note that start_login does NOT open this tool. It still omits what triggering actually does (re-runs the check? consumes the verification? rate limits?), so it's adequate but not rich.

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?

Two tight parts: the action sentence is front-loaded, then the access precondition. No filler, though the ACCESS note is somewhat verbose for a precondition and could be shortened.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose and auth but leaves the actual side effect of the trigger unstated. It is minimally complete but misses behavioral context an agent would want before invoking.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'Verification ID' in the schema. The description's reference to a 'pending domain verification' adds only marginal meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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+resource: 'Trigger a DNS/HTTP verification check' and scopes it to 'a pending domain verification.' This is clear enough to distinguish from readers like get_verification or list_verifications, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with near-neighbors such as check_domain_verification or start_domain_verification.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for a pending domain verification,' giving context for when to invoke it, and the ACCESS paragraph gives a setup precondition. However, it never states when to prefer this over the many verification siblings (check_domain_verification, submit_verification_code, resend_verification), so alternatives are left to inference.

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