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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new context: the pre-existing-record restriction requiring elevated mode, and that cf_undo restores prior values — real behavioral detail beyond annotations. It stops short of clarifying partial-update semantics for a tool whose 11 params are all optional.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by record targeting, the prerequisite, and the reversal path. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

For an 11-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers record identification, a non-obvious prerequisite, and rollback. The only notable gap is whether unspecified fields are left untouched or cleared, which an agent would want before mutating.

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 description coverage is 91%, so the schema already carries nearly all parameter meaning. The description adds only light framing (which fields can be changed, how record_id resolves), so the baseline 3 is appropriate rather than a higher mark.

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 and resource (change one DNS record of a Cloudflare zone) and enumerates exactly which fields are mutable (content, TTL, proxy, priority, name). This clearly separates it from cf_dns_add, cf_dns_list, and cf_dns_remove without opening any schema.

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?

Explains how to target the record (record_id from cf_dns_list, or name plus type when they match exactly one record) and states a real prerequisite: records predating AskYourStack require the connection's "change anything" mode. It also points to cf_undo for reversal, though it never explicitly says when to prefer cf_dns_add over this tool.

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