Enable or disable DNSSEC on a domain registered here

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the operation publishes or withdraws DS records at the registry, returns nothing on success, and highlights a concrete consequence of misuse (breaking validation for cached DS records). The readOnlyHint=false annotation is consistent with this mutating operation, and openWorldHint=true is appropriately paired with the registry-level side effect warning.

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 three sentences with zero filler. The core action is stated first, followed by usage guidance and risk awareness, then the verification step. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the description covers all essential surrounding context: the account-scoped domain prerequisite, the distinction from the similar sibling tool, the risk of premature withdrawal, and the follow-up verification step. Nothing an agent needs to call 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%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the enabled=true/false semantics and domain scope but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific operation: publishing or withdrawing DNSSEC DS records for a domain registered in the account. It also names the sibling tool it is not (eurodns_dns_set_dnssec) and clarifies the resource scope, making it clearly distinguishable from the DNS-level alternative.

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 explicitly says to prefer this tool over eurodns_dns_set_dnssec for domains held in the account, implying the alternative when domains are not held here. It also warns about the risk of withdrawing while the zone stays signed and directs the agent to verify with eurodns_dns_get_dnssec_status, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to use it.

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