trigger_verification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose an important operational requirement (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, server restart) and corrects a possible misconception about start_login. However, it does not explain side effects, whether the check is asynchronous, whether it can be re-triggered, or what happens on failure—so transparency is only partial.

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: one clear purpose sentence followed by a practical access note. Both sentences earn their place, and the most important information is front-loaded. The access note is slightly fragmented but still concise and actionable.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate and includes a valuable setup gotcha. Still, it omits the tool's relationship to the broader verification workflow and what the agent should expect after triggering the check, leaving some contextual ambiguity.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'id' as 'Verification ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema already carries the meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Trigger'), a clear resource ('DNS/HTTP verification check'), and a precondition ('pending domain verification'), which makes the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like check_domain_verification or verify_domain, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for a pending domain verification' implies when the tool should be used, and the access note gives a concrete prerequisite. But it never explicitly says when to prefer trigger_verification over sibling tools such as verify_domain, start_domain_verification, or check_domain_verification. The mention that 'start_login does NOT open this tool' is a useful exclusion but not a full usage guide.

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