create_dns_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that identical records are a no-op and that this tool only previews while apply_plan commits the change. This clarifies the surprising 'create' name without contradicting the safety annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded and waste-free. The preview/write distinction and the routing instruction come first, which is exactly what an agent needs.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the preview/apply_plan workflow is conveyed. The gap is the input: with a large nested DNSRecord schema at 0% description coverage, the description is thin on how to build a valid record, leaving notable ambiguity for a 2-parameter tool with a complex payload.

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% and the description says nothing about either parameter (domain or the nested DNSRecord). For a record with many type-specific fields (MX priority, SRV weight/port, TLSA usage/selector), the description provides no guidance on how to populate them; defaults and enums in the schema must carry the entire burden.

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 action and resource: 'Preview adding one record,' which usefully corrects the misleading 'create_' name by revealing it is a preview, not a write. It also names the sibling that actually performs the write (apply_plan), letting an agent disambiguate without opening schemas.

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?

It states the context of use (previewing a single record addition) and routes the agent explicitly to 'apply_plan to write.' No explicit when-not beyond that, but the alternative is named with the condition that selects it.

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