addRegisteredNameServer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a 'Register' action. It does not explain whether this creates a new resource, whether it can be done alongside other nameserver changes, whether it is immediately effective, or what account/domain state is required.

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 well-formed sentence that immediately states the action and resource, with an API reference link appended. There is no fluff or redundant repetition of parameter names.

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?

This is a 15-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, but the description provides no information about response format, side effects, propagation, or failure modes. The schema is thorough on parameters, but the description does not supply enough operational context for an agent to confidently invoke this among many similar domain tools.

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%, with each parameter already having a meaningful description such as 'Host label to create, e.g. ns1' and 'Primary glue IPv4/IPv6 address'. The tool description adds little beyond the word 'glue', so the schema carries the parameter semantics; a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Register') and a specific resource ('a glue nameserver host for a domain'), which clearly conveys what the tool does. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools such as deleteRegisteredNameServer, listRegisteredNameServers, and modifyRegisteredNameServer through the operation and resource.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like changeNameServers or modifyRegisteredNameServer. The intended context is only implied by the verb and resource; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision rules provided.

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