add_dns_record

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

There are no annotations to provide a safety profile, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It offers no information about side effects, whether existing records are replaced or duplicated, permissions required, or what happens on success or failure. The description only restates the basic action without any behavioral depth.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It omits unnecessary details or repetition, earning its place with a clear verb, resource, and supported types. There is no wasted text.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite thin. It lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., domain must exist), behavioral effects (e.g., duplication), or return values. Given the complexity of the parameters (7 params, 4 required), more context is needed for an agent to confidently invoke this tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including the enum for record types and hints for CNAME/TXT values. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond listing types, which overlaps with the schema. Thus, the description does not significantly compensate or add value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Add') and the resource ('DNS zone record'), and explicitly lists the supported record types (A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT, SRV, CAA). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_dns_record and delete_dns_record, which imply different operations on the same resource.

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 usage context is implied by the verb 'Add' — this tool is for creating new DNS records, not modifying or deleting them. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_dns_record or get_dns_records, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as the zone existing.

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