prufa_register_discovery_domain

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the verification workflow, the purpose of idempotency_key, and the test_payments_opt_in flag. However, it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, rate limits, or required permissions beyond the [Pro] prefix. Still, it provides substantial transparency.

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, with the main purpose upfront. Every sentence adds value: the core action, the follow-up step, the optional parameter, and a clarifying note. No wasted words.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers the workflow, response contents, idempotency, and a parameter use case. It could mention behavior for already-verified domains, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct tool usage.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond parameter descriptions. It explains that the response includes a verification object, that idempotency_key replays return original response, and the effect of test_payments_opt_in. This extra context elevates the score above the baseline of 3.

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 registers a domain for full-auto discovery and returns a DNS TXT record for verification. The verb 'register' and resource 'domain' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like prufa_verify_discovery_domain and prufa_revoke_discovery_domain.

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 explains when to use this tool (register domain for verification), what the response contains (verification object), and the next step (call prufa_verify_discovery_domain after publishing the TXT record). It also notes the test_payments_opt_in parameter and that this authorization is separate from gremlin mutation opt-in, providing clear context.

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