edit_dns_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs an edit, but gives no detail about side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites the record, whether TTL is reset, or whether the operation is reversible). For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the rich input schema and simple operation, the description covers the core purpose but lacks operational context such as what happens on success or how the record is identified. The lack of an output schema and annotations means more context would be helpful, but the schema compensates for parameter understanding. This is a minimum viable description.

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 adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all six properties. Since the schema already explains each parameter (e.g., 'line' as the line number from get_dns_records, 'address' as the new record value), the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the action (edit) and the resource (existing DNS zone record), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_dns_record and delete_dns_record. The verb 'edit' unambiguously conveys modification of an existing entity.

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 usage for modifying an existing DNS record rather than adding or deleting, which is reasonable given sibling tool names. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites like retrieving the line number via get_dns_records (though the schema hints at this).

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