conduyt_reply_capture_verify

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden and does substantial work: it discloses the verified=false return shape, frames propagation as expected non-error, flags a per-account budget, and explains that promotion activates inbound matching and the outgoing Reply-To. It stops short of stating irreversibility or permission requirements for the mutating promotion step.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the verification-to-promotion condition, then the polling caveat, then the effect of promotion. Dense but every sentence earns its place; the final sentence is arguably the least essential.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the verified=false plus DNS record-state return. Combined with the mutation-effect disclosure, an agent has enough to call and interpret it correctly, though noting setup prerequisites would close the remaining gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description correctly needs no parameter detail and instead invests its words in return-state semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: check the pending reply-capture domain's DNS and promote it to live on verification. Clearly a distinct lifecycle step from siblings like reply_capture_get/setup/remove, though it doesn't name them explicitly to sharpen the distinction.

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?

Gives useful operational guidance ('poll sparingly', records propagating is expected not an error) but never states when to use this versus conduyt_reply_capture_get or conduyt_reply_capture_setup, nor any prerequisite sequencing such as requiring setup first.

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