generate_dns_fix

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's read-only nature ('the API only suggests; it never modifies the user's zone') and details the output (proposed records, TTL, provider-specific notes). This provides complete 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 two sentences: the first states purpose and output, the second covers usage, endpoint, and parameters. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the output format (records, TTL, notes), the read-only nature, and the appropriate workflow. It is complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 description explains the issue parameter as an enum with an example but does not list all possible values. It adds meaning by noting context should come from prior scan output. Schema coverage is 67% (issue lacks description in schema); the description partially compensates.

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 tool generates copy-pasteable DNS record snippets to fix a specific issue, with concrete examples like spf_missing. It distinguishes itself from sibling diagnostic tools like check_spf and lookup_dns by focusing on generating fix suggestions rather than just checking.

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 description explicitly guides usage: 'Use after explain_issue or scan_domain identifies a problem; use lookup_dns afterwards to verify.' It also clarifies the tool is read-only and never modifies the zone, setting clear boundaries.

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