update_dns_record

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the crucial nuance that this is a preview of a replacement (not an actual write) and that the record ID is preserved. It does not mention the idempotentHint=false behavior or what triggers an actual apply, but it meaningfully exceeds the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the preview nature and ID preservation are both stated immediately. Every clause carries signal.

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, but for a tool that replaces an entire record payload with a complex schema (0% parameter coverage, enum type field, defaults for ttl/host) the description should clarify replacement/reset semantics and the domain parameter. As written, an agent lacks enough to call it correctly.

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 there are three parameters including a 13-property nested DNSRecord object. The description only gestures at record_id ("preserving its ID") and never explains the domain parameter or what "full payload" replacement means for omitted record fields, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 names a specific operation (preview a replacement), the resource (a specific DNS record), and the scope (full payload, ID preserved). It implicitly separates itself from create_dns_record and delete_dns_record by stating it preserves the existing ID, but it never names a sibling tool outright.

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?

The word "Preview" implies this is a dry-run step rather than a mutation, which hints at when to use it. However, it never states the alternative (e.g., apply_plan, ensure_dns_records) or what to do with the preview afterward, leaving the workflow to inference.

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