regru_update_domain_dns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the effect — replacing authoritative name servers — which is meaningful for a mutation, but says nothing about permissions, whether it replaces or appends the list, propagation delay, reversibility, or failure behavior.

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, front-loaded sentences with no wasted preamble. The second sentence largely restates the first ('Update name servers' vs 'Changes the authoritative name servers'), so it is slightly redundant rather than perfectly lean.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action but omits the operational context an agent needs to call it safely (propagation side effects, whether existing NS are replaced). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% for both parameters (nss array with an example, domain_name), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, ordering, or minimum-NS requirements beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Update') and resource ('DNS name servers / NSS for a domain'), and the second sentence clarifies it targets the authoritative name servers rather than individual DNS records. This implicitly separates it from sibling record-level tools like regru_add_dns_record, but it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs. regru_get_domain_dns, regru_add_dns_record, or regru_batch_update_dns. No prerequisites (domain ownership, existing NS state) and no exclusions are stated, so the agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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