dns_record_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a mutating operation ('Add') and mentions that 'confirm' is required, which hints at a safety gate. However, it does not explicitly state that confirm must be set to true, what the API returns on success, whether duplicate records are rejected, or how conflicts are handled.

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 compact and scannable: one summary line followed by a flat Args block. Every line carries useful parameter information with no filler or repetition.

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 provides enough detail to make basic record additions for A, AAAA, CNAME, and TXT records. However, it under-specifies value formats for MX, SRV, and CAA records, where priority, weight, port, or flags may need to be encoded in the value string. The confirmation behavior is also ambiguous. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but these input-format gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for all six parameters: domain as zone, record_type with an enumerated set of allowed types, name with apex syntax, value, ttl in seconds, and confirm as required. The 'confirm: Required' wording is slightly ambiguous because the schema marks it optional with a default of false, but it still provides information the schema lacks.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Add a DNS record.' It unambiguously identifies the action and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related DNS tools such as dns_record_delete or dns_zone_get, but the verb 'add' makes the primary purpose obvious.

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 phrase 'Add a DNS record' implies the tool should be used when creating a record in a DNS zone. However, there is no explicit guidance about prerequisites, such as the zone needing to exist, or when to prefer this tool over alternative DNS management tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use context are provided.

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