plan_dns_batch

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 still adds real value by disclosing that batch execution is non-atomic and that the batch is capped at 100 — a genuine behavioral caveat an agent would not learn from the annotations alone.

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 with zero filler; the scope and limit come first and the non-atomic caveat second. Every clause carries information 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a plan tool sitting next to apply_plan and get_plan, the description omits the critical lifecycle detail of how the produced plan is subsequently executed or referenced, and never explains the 'domain' argument — gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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. It usefully conveys the action vocabulary (creates/updates/deletes), the maxItems=100 limit, and that ordering of the changes array is significant, but it says nothing about the 'domain' parameter or the nested DNSRecord fields, leaving a substantial gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('Preview') plus the resource ('ordered creates/updates/deletes') and the batch limit of 100, so the agent knows this is a dry-run planner rather than an executor. It implies the read-only nature that separates it from apply_plan but never names that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative. The word 'Preview' hints that this precedes execution, and the sibling list contains apply_plan, but the description never states the relationship (e.g. 'call apply_plan to execute the returned plan'), leaving the plan/apply workflow to be guessed.

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