Update Dns Record

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

The description reveals a key behavioral trait: partial update semantics ('Only the fields you provide will be changed'). With no annotations, this is valuable. But it doesn't disclose other important behaviors like whether updating content triggers validation, what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects (e.g., propagation, DNS resolution impact).

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The core action is stated first, and the partial-update behavior is front-loaded as the second sentence. Very efficient.

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 output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, with no annotations, the description doesn't cover mutation implications, auth needs, or validation behavior. For an update tool, knowing that only provided fields change is helpful, but an agent might want to know if updates are idempotent or if certain fields (like content) have format restrictions beyond schema types.

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 parameters. The description adds the partial-update semantic, which is meaningful but not parameter-specific. It doesn't clarify nuances like the '1 = auto' TTL special value beyond the schema, so baseline 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 ('Update an existing DNS record') and the resource (DNS record). It's distinct from siblings like create_dns_record and delete_dns_record. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from list_dns_records or get_dns_record, though the verb 'update' makes it clear.

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 phrase 'Only the fields you provide will be changed' gives useful usage context, implying partial updates. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, prerequisites (like needing zone_id and record_id), or when not to use it (e.g., for creating or deleting records).

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