add_verification_txt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuine value by clarifying that existing TXT/SPF records are preserved and that this is a preview rather than a mutation, which resolves the apparent conflict between the 'add_' name and the read-only annotation. It stops short of describing auth needs or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and follows with the key constraint; no filler or restatement of the name. It is tight, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing parameter detail noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. But with 0% parameter description coverage on a four-param tool and no routing guidance against the many DNS-mutating siblings, the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: it only hints at a 'TXT verification token' value and the domain implicitly. The 'host' and 'ttl' parameters, their defaults, and the expected value format are undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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-plus-resource ('Preview adding a TXT verification token') and adds a scope constraint about not replacing existing TXT/SPF records. An agent can tell this apart from the raw create_dns_record sibling by the 'preview' framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Preview' implies this is a dry-run step to inspect before committing changes, which is useful implied usage. However, it never states when to prefer this over create_dns_record, ensure_dns_records, or apply_plan, nor what to do with the preview result, leaving the workflow to inference.

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