update_dns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes that 'Updating a record will change its record id,' which is a critical behavioral trait not obvious from the schema. However, it lacks other important details: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects on DNS resolution, or error handling for invalid inputs.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, includes a behavioral note upfront, and then lists parameters with explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise by avoiding redundancy in examples like 'e.g.,' repetitions.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and parameters well but lacks critical context: no output format details, no error conditions, no rate limits or authentication requirements, and minimal behavioral transparency beyond the record ID change note. For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, this leaves gaps in operational understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully adds meaning for all 6 parameters by explaining each one's purpose with examples (e.g., 'domain_id: Domain UUID', 'type: DNS record type', 'ttl: Time To Live in seconds'). This goes beyond the schema's basic titles and provides essential context for proper usage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing DNS record for a domain'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_dns' or 'delete_dns', which would require mentioning it modifies existing records rather than creating new ones or removing them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing DNS record), contrast with 'create_dns' for new records or 'delete_dns' for removal, or specify any contextual constraints like domain ownership requirements.

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