wafle_domains_verify

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description reveals the full multi-step pipeline including probing TXT/CNAME/file methods, Let's Encrypt via acme.sh, nginx config rendering and reload, marking the domain active, and appending log events. It also discloses the 1-attempt-per-minute rate limit and the prerequisite that the domain must be previously added. This is substantial behavioral context not visible in structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a clearly numbered pipeline and a final caveat. Every sentence adds new information with no 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 thoroughly details the side-effectful process, rate limits, and idempotency, and it sets the prerequisite of a previously-added domain. However, with no output schema present, it does not describe the response shape or failure behavior, leaving a slight gap for a tool that triggers a multi-step process.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both `id` and `slug`. The description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics, but this is not necessary given the thorough schema coverage; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase 'Trigger immediate verification + SSL + nginx provisioning' and clarifies the target as 'a previously-added domain,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like wafle_domains_add, wafle_domains_list, and wafle_domains_status. The numbered pipeline further concretizes the action.

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 states this is for 'previously-added domain' and highlights idempotency and a rate limit, giving the user clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., wafle_domains_status) or state when not to use it, so the guidance is solid but not fully explicit.

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