Create TLSA Record

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

The description reveals critical behavior beyond annotations: it overwrites (not merges) and can break TLS validation. This complements the destructiveHint and idempotentHint 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 concise (two sentences plus a warning), front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value without 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?

For a complex tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral warnings and usage guidance. It lacks detail on return values, but that is not required per rules.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the coverage.

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 tool creates a TLSA record and explains its purpose (TLS certificate association / DANE). This distinguishes it from sibling DNS record creation tools.

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 explicitly warns that the tool replaces all existing TLSA records with the same name and advises using list_dns_records first to check. It also highlights the risk of breaking TLS validation.

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