create_verified_domain

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only 'Add a domain for verification' and gives no detail about side effects, whether verification is triggered automatically, prerequisites like DNS records, or idempotency. For a create operation, this is insufficient.

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 brief and front-loaded, using six words to convey the core action and purpose. It does not waste words, and for such a simple tool, a longer description may not be necessary. It is slightly under-specified but still appropriately sized.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a simple create operation, the description should clarify what happens after adding a domain. It does not specify whether the domain is immediately verified, if a verification email is sent separately, or what the response contains. The existence of sibling 'send_domain_verification_email' makes this ambiguity particularly problematic, so the description is incomplete.

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 schema covers the single 'domain' parameter with a description explaining that an email address can be supplied and the domain will be extracted. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 uses the specific verb 'Add' with resource 'domain' and states the purpose 'for verification'. This clearly indicates the action of adding a domain to be verified, distinguishing it from siblings like 'send_domain_verification_email' and 'delete_verified_domain'. However, it lacks the phrase 'verified domain' and could be misread as performing the verification itself, so it falls 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention of using this before 'send_domain_verification_email' or that verification might occur automatically. The description provides no context for selecting this among the verified-domain sibling tools.

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