add_dns_host_override

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that the operation is staged and requires a separate apply step, which is a non-obvious and important behavioral detail. It doesn't mention error handling or idempotency, but for a create operation, the staging mechanism is the most critical behavior and is clearly disclosed.

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 concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is stated first, and the staging behavior is added as a clear second sentence. This is an efficient use of space and easy for an agent to parse.

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?

The staging behavior is covered, and an output schema exists (though not shown here), which may describe return values. However, the description does not explain the parameters at all, which is a significant gap given the schema provides no descriptions. For a tool with five parameters, three required, the agent needs more guidance to use it correctly. The description is adequate for purpose but incomplete for parameter usage.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not. The agent is left to infer what 'host', 'domain', and 'ip' mean, and there is no guidance on format, examples, or how 'apply' and 'descr' are used. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but without details, the agent may pass incorrect values.

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 ('Create') and resource ('DNS host override entry') with an explicit target ('Unbound DNS Resolver'). This is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_dns_host_overrides and delete_dns_host_override, which operate on the same resource but with different actions.

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 a crucial usage context: the operation is staged until apply_changes('dns') is called or apply=true is passed. This tells the agent when the change takes effect and how to trigger it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, but the staging guidance is a strong usage signal that helps the agent decide how to invoke this tool correctly.

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