Create or update a nameserver profile

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

It reveals a critical non-obvious behavior not captured by annotations: the API clears any omitted fields on update, so callers must send every field. It also discloses the return value. This goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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 deliver the core purpose, the critical update behavior, and a pointer to the prerequisite read tool. No filler and the most important caveat 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 tool with nested objects and an output schema, the description covers the essential logic, the update pitfall, and the prerequisite lookup flow. The schema and annotations cover the rest, so nothing important 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 coverage is already complete, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the role of id in deciding create versus update and by clarifying that body must contain all fields during update. This materially helps an agent construct correct calls.

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 clearly states the tool creates a nameserver profile when id is omitted and updates when id is provided, and it returns the saved profile. This distinguishes it from sibling save/profile tools by naming the exact object type and the create/update duality.

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 explains when creation versus update occurs based on the presence of id, and instructs users to start from eurodns_nameserver_get_profile for updates. This is actionable usage guidance that directly supports correct invocation.

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