Takeover Verify

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

The description explains what happens after verification: the host is filed as 'needs manual review' and requires a separate confirmation process. It does not enumerate edge cases or failure modes, but the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations cover the safety profile.

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 and well-structured, using short lines to convey the verification criteria, follow-up actions, and delegation grading. Every sentence adds meaningful information without fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the verification criteria, the resulting status, and the next steps in the takeover workflow. Since an output schema exists, omitting return-value details is acceptable; still, it does not mention possible verification failures or non-agreement outcomes explicitly.

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 only parameter is 'target' with no schema description, and the description provides limited direct explanation of acceptable formats. However, the context of CNAME chains and live responses implies target is a hostname or domain, which is some compensation for the lack of schema details.

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 verify a takeover candidate by checking CNAME chain, live response, and fingerprint. It also differentiates verification from actual confirmation, explicitly pointing to takeover_poc_plan and takeover_confirm as subsequent 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?

It provides explicit criteria for use: all three checks must agree before recording the host as verified, and NS/MX delegations are prioritized. It does not explicitly say 'use this after takeover_detect' but the workflow context is clear from the sibling tools and the confirmation flow.

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