domain_dns_update

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Update' without explaining whether it replaces all records, merges, or patches omissions. There's no mention of idempotency, error handling, or side effects.

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 and an example: no fluff, front-loaded purpose. Every sentence contributes to understanding the input structure.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits return behavior, error cases, and update semantics (replace vs merge). For a mutation tool with multiple siblings, more context is needed to avoid misuse.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, leaving both parameters undefined. The description adds meaning for 'records' by specifying required fields (type, name, content, ttl) and optional (proxied). However, 'domain' remains without explanation beyond its name.

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's purpose: 'Update DNS records for a domain.' It uses a specific verb (update) and resource (DNS records), and the sibling domain_dns_get indicates a clear separation of concerns (read vs write).

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 provides a structural example of expected input but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to update vs get or check). No explicit context on prerequisites or limitations.

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