update_dns_zone_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the PATCH endpoint, and its 'Create resource record' line actively conflicts with the update semantics, leaving unclear whether unspecified body fields are preserved or reset and whether the whole record is replaced.

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?

It is short, but the second sentence is a copy-paste artifact from a create operation that contradicts the tool's own name and wastes the only explanatory slot. The useful information (PATCH semantics) is buried in brackets rather than 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 4-parameter tool with a nested 8-field body, 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description only needs to confirm intent and partial-update behavior. It half-does that via the PATCH path but undercuts it with the contradictory 'Create resource record' phrasing.

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% (zoneName, recordId, body and all nested fields documented), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description contributes nothing beyond the path template, so the baseline 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?

The first clause names a specific verb and resource (update DNS zone record) and the HTTP path, which is reasonably identifiable. However, the appended sentence 'Create resource record in a zone' describes a creation operation and directly muddles whether this tool updates or creates, and it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like create_dns_zone_record.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this versus create_dns_zone_record, update_ptr_record, or bulk_delete_dns_zone_records. The only hint is the PATCH path, which an agent must infer means 'modify an existing record'.

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