Reissue DNS zone verification

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds crucial context: the previous value stops being accepted, existing TXT must be updated manually, reissuing does not itself verify or reset status, rate limit is 5/min, and dns:write scope is required. This goes well beyond the annotation hints and covers side effects, permissions, and 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?

The description is dense but every clause carries actionable information: preconditions, conditional logic, return value, side effect, rate limit, and scope requirement. It is front-loaded with the core action and follows a logical sequence of read → decide → reissue → update → verify.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains what verificationRecord returns, the side effect on the old value, the required follow-up, and the authentication scope. Together with annotations covering safety, this provides a complete operational picture for correctly invoking and handling the tool.

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 there is one parameter, so the schema already documents zone_id. The description references zone.verification.record.value and zone.verification.next_step, but these appear to be fields of get_dns_zone's output rather than parameters of this tool, so they add context for the workflow but not new semantics for zone_id. Baseline for low complexity with full coverage is 3; the workflow linkage to output fields justifies a 4.

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 verb (rotate/reissue) and resource (ownership TXT value for a DNS zone verification record), including a precondition state (pending_verification or verification_expired). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like verify_dns_zone and get_dns_zone, which are explicitly referenced as related steps.

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?

Explicit when-to-use conditions are given: reissue only when the existing TXT value is null/unrecoverable or the customer requests rotation. It also names the prerequisite read (get_dns_zone) and the required follow-up (verify_dns_zone), leaving no ambiguity about sequencing.

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