update_dns

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavior. It usefully reveals that the tool operates on exactly one record and verifies after updating, which is beyond what the name implies. However, it does not disclose side effects, overwrite semantics, permissions, or failure behavior, leaving important operational traits unspecified.

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 sentence front-loads the action, resource, scope, and the verify-after behavior with no filler. Every phrase earns its place; the description is as short as it can be while still conveying the core operation.

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?

For a write tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is under-specified. The agent is left without guidance on how the target record is identified, what dry_run/proxied/allow_root/allow_sensitive affect, or what a successful update returns.

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 description maps to the record types in the schema's enum but adds no meaning for ttl, allow_root, allow_sensitive, or the auto TTL choice. With parameter schema coverage at 63%, the uncovered flags remain unexplained by the description, so it does not materially compensate for the gaps.

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 verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('A, AAAA, CNAME, or TXT record'), and a scoping constraint ('exactly one'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_dns, upsert_dns, or delete_dns. It is immediately obvious what this tool does.

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 phrase 'Update exactly one...' implies this is for modifying a single existing record, but the description never explicitly contrasts it with create_dns (new records), upsert_dns (create-or-update), or delete_dns (removal). Usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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