update_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 the destructive replace-not-append semantics ('completely replacing its values and/or TTL'), but omits permission requirements, failure behavior when the name/type does not exist, and whether the change is atomic or reversible.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target, and the replacement scope with zero filler. Nothing wasted and nothing buried.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core replace semantics but leaves the sibling-routing question (add_record vs set_records), preconditions, and error/permission context unaddressed.

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 explains every parameter, including the TTL-preservation and overwrite behavior. The description adds the replace-scope framing but no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (update) and resource (DNS record set) plus the scoping keys (name and type), and clarifies that values/TTL are replaced wholesale. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools add_record or set_records, which an agent must disambiguate before choosing this one.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus add_record, set_records, or delete_record, and no prerequisites (e.g. does the record set have to pre-exist?). The word 'existing' hints at a precondition but never states it explicitly or names an alternative.

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