add_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that a same-name/same-type record causes the new value to be appended rather than replacing existing data, which is a non-obvious mutation trait. However, it says nothing about required permissions, failure modes, propagation, or what the response contains.

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 short sentences with zero padding; the core action leads and the important edge-case behavior follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 5-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential action plus the key non-obvious behavior (append semantics). It is only short of permission/auth context, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including TTL default and accepted record types. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a DNS record to a domain') and the second sentence clarifies the append-not-replace semantics, which meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like update_record and set_records. It does not name those siblings directly, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 append-on-duplicate behavior implies when this tool is appropriate (adding to an existing record set rather than replacing it), but the description never names update_record or set_records as alternatives or states when to prefer them. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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