Validate a DNS zone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'without changing anything' and 'Nothing is saved.' It also adds useful behavioral context: the report is per-record and the tool is a pre-save diagnostic step. This exceeds the baseline provided by the 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?

Two sentences carry a high amount of signal: what the tool does, its side-effect-free nature, and how it relates to save_zone. There is no redundant filler or restatement of schema details.

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 the rich output schema, annotations, and full parameter documentation, the description provides the missing contextual pieces: when to call it, what makes it valuable versus save_zone, and that the body should match get_zone's response shape. An agent has enough information to select and call the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by stating that the body is 'in the shape eurodns_dns_get_zone returns,' which tells an agent exactly how to populate the nested body object, and by reaffirming that nothing is saved.

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 uses a specific verb ('validates'), a clear resource ('candidate zone'), and states the outcome ('returns a per-record report'). It also explicitly differentiates the tool from eurodns_dns_save_zone, so an agent can distinguish it from a key sibling without inspecting the schema.

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 gives explicit guidance: use this tool before eurodns_dns_save_zone, because a rejected save only returns a generic error while this tool reports the reason for each offending record. This directly answers when and why to use the tool versus the relevant alternative.

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