update_nameservers

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the real consequence ('makes its LWS DNS zone stop answering') and the deferral mechanism, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers the side-effect warning and the required-count rule. The parenthetical 'deferred: see list_pending_requests' is slightly cryptic but tight overall with no wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the mutation's consequence, the parameter-count rule, and the deferral path, leaving little an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% (baseline 3), and the description adds a non-obvious semantic rule not in the schema: all four are required and a value must be repeated when fewer than four exist. That meaningfully shapes how the agent fills ns1-ns4.

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?

States a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('the four nameservers of a domain') with scope. It routes the agent to a sibling ('deferred: see list_pending_requests'), so it can be distinguished from related request tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the deferred nature of the operation and points to list_pending_requests for tracking it, giving clear context on how the call behaves. It stops short of explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance against a direct alternative.

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