Save a DNS zone

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

Discloses the destructive consequence beyond the annotations: 'Anything absent from the submitted document is deleted.' Annotations already mark it as a write (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent, so the description's value-add is precisely the 'what gets destroyed' warning plus the safety precondition. Note: destructiveHint=false slightly understates this, but the description corrects rather than contradicts it.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, with the most critical fact (entire-zone replacement) front-loaded before consequences and alternatives. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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 complex tool with a nested zone document, the description covers the key decision point (replace-all vs. upsert) and the data-loss risk. A small gap: it references 'a complete zone you have just read' without naming eurodns_dns_get_zone as the read source, leaving a slightly vague prerequisite for a less-informed agent.

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 body parameter's schema description already explains that it must be the complete zone, that omissions are deleted, and that record values go in rdata. The tool description mainly reinforces the 'complete zone you have just read' precondition rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Opens with 'Replaces a zone in its entirety' — a specific verb and resource that corrects the vaguer title ('Save a DNS zone') by pinning down full-replacement semantics. The follow-up sentence ('Anything absent... is deleted') removes any ambiguity about partial vs. full save.

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 the safe usage condition ('only safe with a complete zone you have just read') and names the alternative for the common single-record case ('prefer eurodns_dns_upsert_record, which reads, validates and saves for you'). This is textbook when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance tied to a specific sibling.

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