Update DNS record

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses an important behavioral detail: the update is guarded by optimistic concurrency, so stale observed state will not silently overwrite changes. It also warns that the guard is mandatory, which is useful operational context.

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 concise sentences, with the core action and concurrency constraint front-loaded, followed by the required workflow. No filler or redundant restatement 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?

Annotations and output schema cover safety and return expectations, and the description covers the key precondition and guard behavior. However, the parameter documentation gap and lack of explicit sibling alternatives leave the definition less than fully self-contained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only explains expected_value and expected_priority as guards. It does not clarify domain, record_id, value, or priority, leaving the agent to infer their roles.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('DNS record'), and adds a distinguishing mechanism: mandatory optimistic-concurrency guards via expected_value and expected_priority. This clearly separates it from create/delete/list/get siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition: read the record first and pass the observed state. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_dns_record as the read step, but the workflow implication is clear enough for an agent.

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