Validate a DNS zone profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond those annotations by explicitly stating 'without saving anything' (confirming the operation is purely non-persistent), describing the output shape as 'a per-record report', and disclosing that the sibling save tool fails with generic errors only. It does not elaborate on side effects or edge cases, but for a read-only validation tool with openWorldHint=true, the disclosures are adequate.

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, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and the non-persistence guarantee; the second delivers targeted usage guidance naming two siblings. Every clause earns its place, and the structure mirrors an agent's decision sequence: what → when → versus what.

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 validate-only tool with a rich output schema (the report structure is fully documented), an existing schema covering the single input parameter, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete. It covers the operation's purpose, its non-destructive nature, its position in the save workflow, and its distinction from the live-zone checker. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% (the single required 'body' parameter is described as 'The candidate profile to validate: name, records, urlForwards and mailForwards. Nothing is saved.'), so the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden. The tool description reinforces that the body is a 'candidate zone profile' but adds no syntax, defaults, or format details beyond what the schema already states. This matches the baseline 3 for full schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Validates') and a specific resource ('candidate zone profile'), and immediately states what it returns ('a per-record report') and what it does not do ('without saving anything'). It explicitly names two siblings to distinguish itself: eurodns_dns_save_zone_profile (the follow-up action) and eurodns_dns_check_zone (checks a live zone instead of a template). An agent can tell this tool apart from all 48 siblings without opening 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 an explicit workflow position: 'Use it before eurodns_dns_save_zone_profile', with the rationale that the save tool's 'rejections carry only a generic error'. It also draws a precise boundary between templates and live zones by contrasting with eurodns_dns_check_zone. This is exemplary when-to-use guidance with both an inclusion and an exclusion.

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