recheck_dns_verification

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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond annotations: null result indicates no applicable custom hostname, verificationErrors should be surfaced, and the domain should not be reported live unless both statuses are active. This adds context about return interpretation and error handling.

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 concise but includes multiple clauses and conditions. It is not overly verbose, and all sentences contribute useful information. A slight trim could improve it, but it is well-structured.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the description explains the expected return values, null handling, and success criteria, the description is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly. No critical missing information.

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 already has 100% coverage for the single parameter deploymentId, with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond reiterating the deployment context, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to retry custom-hostname domain-control validation for a Cloudflare Workers deployment and return refreshed status. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from related tools like push_dns_to_cloudflare by explicitly noting it does not write DNS records.

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?

Provides explicit conditions for when to call: after DNS records are published or when the user explicitly asks to recheck verification. It also clarifies what the tool does not do (write DNS or change nameservers), guiding the agent away from incorrect use.

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