modifyRegisteredNameServer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says what is changed and says nothing about side effects, propagation, whether existing glue IPs are replaced or merged, or whether this affects live domain resolution. The external API reference link does not compensate for in-description context.

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 compact sentence with the core operation front-loaded and an external reference appended. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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?

With 16 parameters, 4 required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient for safe autonomous invocation. It does not explain how current_host and domain identify the existing nameserver, what valid values look like, or what the response indicates. The API reference link is helpful but the description itself remains incomplete.

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?

The input schema describes all 16 parameters at 100% coverage, so the schema is already doing the heavy lifting. The description adds a useful high-level mapping between 'host name' and glue IPs and the parameters, but it does not clarify the required relationship, especially since new_host and ip1 are both required despite the 'and/or' phrasing.

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 ('Change'), the target resource ('a registered nameserver'), and the exact things that can be changed ('host name and/or glue IPs'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like addRegisteredNameServer, deleteRegisteredNameServer, and changeNameServers.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus addRegisteredNameServer, deleteRegisteredNameServer, or changeNameServers. It does not state prerequisites such as the nameserver already being registered or the need for domain ownership/access.

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