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 'without saving' claim is redundant. However, the description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it clarifies that this checks a template, not a live zone, and that it returns a per-record report. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior without contradicting any 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, front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then usage guidance and differentiation. Every clause earns its place with no fluff. The structure is clear and efficient.

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 tool's purpose (validation before save), the input schema is comprehensive, and an output schema is present, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it doesn't do, and when to use it. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool 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%, so all parameters already have detailed descriptions. The description mentions the main fields (name, records, urlForwards, mailForwards) but doesn't add anything about their formats or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds marginal value.

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 resource ('candidate zone profile in body') and enumerates the exact components checked (name, records, urlForwards, mailForwards). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming eurodns_dns_save_zone_profile and eurodns_dns_check_zone as alternatives, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'before eurodns_dns_save_zone_profile' and explains why (its rejection is a bare 400). It also gives a clear exclusion: 'for a zone use eurodns_dns_check_zone instead.' This provides both positive and negative usage guidance with named alternatives.

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