infomaniak_manage_dnssec

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

The description claims enable/disable actions are 'destructive', but annotations set destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction that undermines the AI agent's ability to assess risk. The description also adds value with two-phase commit details, but the contradiction severely impacts transparency.

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 a single dense paragraph that conveys all necessary information without verbosity. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for actions) but is efficient.

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?

The description covers the three actions, two-phase commit, and replacement of older tools. Despite the annotation contradiction, it provides sufficient context for correct usage, including the TTL constraint. The output schema exists, so return value details are not required.

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 100% and all parameters have descriptions. The description adds context about the two-phase commit flow and the role of confirmation_token, going beyond the schema definitions.

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 is for unified DNSSEC management with three specific actions (check, enable, disable), and explicitly distinguishes it from the older v0.9 trio of tools, making the purpose precise and differentiating from siblings.

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 explains the two-phase commit for enable/disable and default action as check, providing context on when to use each action. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the deprecated trio.

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