Set nameservers

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: it warns that all existing nameservers are replaced, explains that removing all nameservers may affect MagicDNS, flags a documentation discrepancy, and tells the agent to inspect `magicDNS` in the response. This is exactly the kind of context that prevents incorrect invocation.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose and scope first, destructive replacement warning second, and the subtle MagicDNS edge case third. There is no fluff or restatement of schema or annotation data.

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 one-parameter mutation with strong annotations (destructive, idempotent, not read-only) and a fully documented schema, the description covers the core behavior, the edge case, and what to check in the response. Nothing essential is missing for an agent 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?

The schema already fully documents the `dns` parameter with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by indicating that an empty array is a valid and consequential input, which the schema does not explicitly state. It does not add syntax-level detail, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Set'), a specific resource ('DNS nameservers'), and a clear scope ('your tailnet'). It also clarifies the full-replacement semantics, making it easy to distinguish from read-style siblings like tailscale_get_nameservers.

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 description implies the tool is used to replace tailnet nameservers, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over related siblings such as tailscale_set_dns_configuration or tailscale_set_dns_preferences. There is no when/when-not guidance, only an implied use case.

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