replace_ip

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, and the description usefully confirms the dry-run nature. It adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: it touches matching mail hosts, preserves TTL, and leaves unrelated records untouched. It does not address idempotentHint=false or openWorldHint=true, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core action front-loaded and the preservation guarantees following. No filler or redundancy.

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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is the workflow linkage to apply_plan and the scope limits on the domains argument, leaving an agent able to call it but unsure what to do with the preview.

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 carries the full burden, and it only partially compensates. 'Exact A/AAAA address' clarifies old_ip/new_ip are IPs, and 'explicitly selected domains' hints at domains, but it does not explain the string-or-integer domain identifier form, the 100-item cap, or whether matching is by address value.

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+resource: previewing replacement of an exact A/AAAA address across selected domains. 'Preview' clearly signals a dry-run rather than a mutation, distinguishing it from update_dns_record. However, it never names apply_plan or otherwise differentiates itself from the plan_dns_batch sibling, so an agent can't fully place it in the workflow.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. The word 'Preview' implies a dry-run workflow but the description never says the result must be committed via apply_plan, which is the single most important routing decision for this tool. Usage is left almost entirely to inference.

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