domains_verify

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes useful mechanism detail (it queries authoritative nameservers and compares the _verify TXT record) plus the HTTP verb/posture. It does not say what a failed verification returns, whether it throws or returns a status, or what side effect the call has on the zone record.

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?

Two compact sentences: the mechanism comes first, the endpoint second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most decision-relevant clause is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotation explanation of outcomes, the description carries the burden of telling an agent what to expect after a verification attempt, and it does not. For a state-changing, potentially destructive call against a single undocumented id, the definition is adequate on intent but thin on prerequisites, failure behavior, and result.

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 0% for the single required parameter 'id'. The description only leaks the meaning indirectly via 'POST /domains/{id}/verify', which hints the value is a domain identifier, but it never states whether it is the domain id, the zone id, or the zone being verified — and the prose's switch between 'zone' and 'domains/{id}' leaves that ambiguous.

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 gives a specific verb and mechanism: it 'confirms ownership' of a 'pending_verification zone' by matching the '_verify TXT record against its authoritative nameservers.' That is far more precise than a tautology and clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like domains_get or domains_get_expected_nameservers. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 phrase 'pending_verification zone' implicitly scopes when this tool applies, which is genuine guidance beyond the name. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, no mention of the required prior state checks (e.g. that a _verify TXT record must already exist), and no routing to siblings such as domains_check_domain_delegation or domains_get_expected_nameservers.

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