copy_dns_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real semantics beyond that: add-only behavior, skipping exact duplicates, and preserving absolute target names—plus implicit confirmation that this is a preview, not an applied mutation. It omits permission requirements and what the preview response contains.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the preview action and scope come first, followed by the behavioral constraints. The semicolon-fragmented second sentence is slightly clipped but conveys three distinct rules without waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. What is missing is the workflow context—whether the preview's result must be fed to apply_plan, how it relates to plan_dns_batch, and whether the target domain must already exist.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and only partially does: 'optionally selected hosts' clarifies the hosts parameter, and 'another domain' distinguishes source from target. The fact that source_domain/target_domain accept either a name string or a numeric domain ID is left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (preview copying) and resource (DNS records) with target-domain scope, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like plan_dns_batch or apply_plan, which also deal with deferred DNS changes.

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?

'Preview' implies a dry-run that precedes an apply step, which weakly hints at the plan-then-apply workflow. However, it never names apply_plan/plan_dns_batch or states when to use this instead of creating records directly with create_dns_record.

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