export_zone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description usefully adds that output is returned rather than written to disk and that the snapshot is 'complete' (DNS plus forwards), which is real information beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about size, rate limits, or scope boundaries.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that delivers the verb, the resource, the payload contents, and the key constraint with zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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-value detail is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a tool with an ambiguous single parameter and several plausible sibling alternatives, the definition leaves the agent guessing about parameter form and selection context.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden and fails to clarify it. It never explains whether 'domain' is a domain name string or a numeric domain id, despite the schema's ambiguous anyOf(string, integer) union — exactly the ambiguity the description should resolve.

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 (Export) and resource (a complete JSON snapshot of DNS and forwards), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent read tools such as audit_dns, list_dns_records, or restore_dns_backup, which a domain-export tool arguably should.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent is not told whether this is for backup purposes, migration, or inspection, nor how it relates to restore_dns_backup (its obvious counterpart) or audit_dns. Only the 'no filesystem write' constraint gives any usage context.

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