Update DNS record

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the interactive confirmation flow, that declining leaves state unchanged, and the exact result status values ('declined'/'cancelled'). It also discloses partial-update semantics, which complements but is not implied by destructiveHint=true or idempotentHint=true.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the update semantics, then the confirmation caveat. No filler and no restatement of the record-type field matrix that the schema already covers.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, this covers the essentials: how to identify the record, how partial updates behave, and what happens on decline. It does not mention that type-specific fields (CAA/SRV/TLSA/SSHFP) only apply to matching record types, leaving that to the schema.

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 100%, so per-field meaning is already documented; the description adds genuine semantic value with the merge/patch rule ('only the fields you pass are changed'). The id-sourcing note duplicates the schema's own description of `id`, which keeps this from a 5.

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 and resource ('Change an existing DNS record') and implicitly separates itself from create_dns_record/delete_dns_record via 'existing'. It also names the sibling that supplies the required identifier, so an agent knows exactly what tool feeds this one.

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?

Gives concrete pre-call guidance: obtain the `id` from list_dns_records, and note that only supplied fields are modified, which tells the agent to send a minimal patch rather than a full record. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., use delete_dns_record to remove, create_dns_record for new records).

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