infomaniak_dns_create_record

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral detail of the two-phase commit process, which is not captured in annotations. It does not contradict annotations. The description could have elaborated on rate limits or authentication requirements, but the two-phase commit insight is valuable.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first clearly states the purpose, and the second explains the critical two-phase commit workflow. No wasted words.

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 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It notes the plan+token return from the first call, which compensates for the lack of explicit return value explanation. The description could mention idempotency (annotations say false) but is otherwise complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, but the description adds significant meaning: zone explains domain management check, source clarifies '.' for apex, type mandates UPPERCASE, target explains inline priority for MX/SRV, ttl provides defaults, and confirmation_token links to the plan phase. This greatly aids correct parameter usage.

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 'Create a DNS record on an Infomaniak-managed zone' and details the two-phase commit process, distinguishing it from sibling tools like infomaniak_dns_delete_record, infomaniak_dns_list_records, and infomaniak_dns_update_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?

The description explicitly explains the two-phase commit protocol: 'first call returns a plan + token, second call (same params + token) actually creates the record.' It also hints at prerequisites via the zone parameter description (check managing domain). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives.

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