changeNameServers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly indicates a mutation with 'Set,' but it does not mention that existing nameservers are likely replaced, that ns1+ns2 are effectively required for a valid call, or how partial failures across up to 200 domains are handled. The API link is a fallback, not inline transparency.

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 one tightly written sentence plus a reference link. The core action and essential call requirements are front-loaded with no filler.

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?

Parameter semantics are nearly fully covered by the schema, and the description supplies the key invocation rule. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not disclose the response format, batch error behavior, or whether the operation replaces all existing nameservers; the API reference link partially mitigates this.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by making the operative call pattern explicit: 'Provide ns1+ns2 (or nameservers[]),' which is not marked as required in the schema itself. The 200-domain limit is also surfaced in the compact description.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Set nameservers for up to 200 domains.' It conveys the scope and batch nature of the operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like modifyRegisteredNameServer or dnsUpdateRecord, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The instruction 'Provide ns1+ns2 (or nameservers[])' explains how to invoke it, but nothing describes when domain-level nameserver changes are appropriate or when to prefer sibling DNS/nameserver tools.

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