regru_add_dns_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For a mutation tool it discloses none of the relevant traits: whether an existing same-name/type record is overwritten, whether the change propagates/deletes anything, permission or auth requirements, or rate limits.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded followed by supported types; every clause has a purpose, though the type enumeration is redundant with the schema enum.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no description of return value or failure modes. The description omits success/error behavior and any prerequisite context, which is a substantial gap for an agent invoking a write operation.

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 100%, so all six parameters including the record_type enum are already documented in the schema; the description's record-type list merely repeats the enum. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no format or conditional semantics 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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (DNS resource record to a domain zone) and enumerates the supported record types. It clearly differs from get/update/delete siblings by name, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with regru_batch_update_dns or regru_update_domain_dns.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: no statement about choosing this over regru_batch_update_dns for multiple records, no prerequisites (e.g. domain must exist/be delegated), and no mention of conflict behavior with existing records.

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