Verify Domain Claim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the asynchronous nature ('Trigger asynchronous DNS verification'), the pending state ('claim stays 'pending''), and the post-verification side effect (NEW DKIM records). It could also mention failure handling or idempotency, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence contributes necessary workflow context. No redundant or vague wording.

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 full lifecycle: triggering verification, polling for status, and subsequent steps (fetch DKIM records, add to DNS, run verify-domain). It's complete for an asynchronous tool with no output schema, as it directs the agent to the appropriate follow-up actions.

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 schema already describes the single parameter 'id' fully as 'The placeholder Domain ID created by the claim', and schema coverage is 100%. The description repeats 'using the placeholder Domain ID' but adds no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action: 'Trigger asynchronous DNS verification and ownership transfer for a domain claim'. It specifies the resource (domain claim) and the unique input (placeholder Domain ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like get-domain-claim (poll status) and verify-domain (final verification).

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 explicit usage context: use after creating a claim, poll get-domain-claim for status, then fetch DKIM records with get-domain, add them to DNS, and run verify-domain. It names alternative tools and describes the workflow sequence, making when-to-use clear.

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