create_site_cname_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. It states 'Creates a DNS record,' which implies a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and constraints with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the tool's purpose and constraints, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, idempotency) and does not explain return values or error handling, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Creates a DNS record') and the specific resource ('for a specific website'), with explicit constraints ('Only supports records with type=CNAME and sourceType=Domain'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_site_a_or_aaaa_record or create_site_txt_record, which handle different DNS record types.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool by specifying the supported record types (CNAME with sourceType=Domain). It implies alternatives through sibling tools for other record types, but does not explicitly name them or state when not to use this tool (e.g., for non-CNAME records).

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