Verify a custom domain

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

Beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses key behavioral details: the non-blocking behavior, the 'retry_after' mechanism, diagnostics showing expected vs observed DNS values, and what happens once status is 'live' (publishing with domain set). This adds significant context about the tool's runtime behavior and recovery semantics.

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 information-dense and well-structured: purpose first, then behavior, re-call guidance, recovery path, post-live outcome, and parameter detail. Every sentence contributes necessary context, though it is slightly longer than strictly needed.

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 tool with nuanced behavior (status advancement, retry logic, recovery), the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, usage, behavioral nuances, and the meaning of the parameter. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the description is complete for the given complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying acceptable input forms ('the `dom_…` id or the hostname'), which helps the agent understand what 'domain' can be even though the schema describes it as a string.

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 function: 'Check a custom domain's DNS and TLS provisioning and advance its status (pending_dns → verifying → live).' This is a specific verb+resource+state transition, and it distinguishes the verify operation from sibling domain tools like connect, list, get, update, and delete.

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 description provides strong context for when to use the tool: it explains the non-blocking nature, instructs to re-call after 'retry_after' seconds if status is 'verifying' or 'pending_dns', and explicitly identifies it as the recovery path after a 'failed' status. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the re-call and recovery guidance effectively communicates usage scenarios.

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