generate_dns_fix

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

Although annotations already include readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, the description adds crucial context: 'Read-only POST to /ai/fix — the API only suggests; it never modifies the user's zone.' It also discloses the return payload (records, TTL recommendations, provider notes), going beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction exists.

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 four sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then follows with output details, safety, parameter guidance, and workflow in a compact, well-ordered structure.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns. It covers usage prerequisites (after scan_domain/explain_issue), parameter semantics, safety, and the next verification step (lookup_dns), making it self-sufficient for an agent.

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 schema documents `domain` format and `context` origin, but `issue` is only an enum without a description. The description compensates by explaining 'fix one specific issue' and giving a concrete example (`spf_missing` → suggested SPF record), and it clarifies that `context` should be from 'prior scan output for tailored output', adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate copy-pasteable DNS record snippets that fix one specific issue', immediately clarifying the tool's function. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the output ('proposed records, TTL recommendations, and provider-specific notes') and the /ai/fix endpoint.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Use after explain_issue or scan_domain identifies a problem; use lookup_dns afterwards to verify the user has applied the suggested record.' It explains when to call the tool and what inputs to provide, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling generators like generate_spf or generate_dmarc.

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