Add DNS record

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

The description adds behavioral nuance by explaining the PATCH method and the non-overwriting property, which goes beyond what the annotations convey (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). It does not describe failure modes or response shape, but the annotations already cover the low-risk safety profile, and there is no contradiction.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the primary action and its key behavioral constraint; the second identifies the alternative. Information density is high with no redundant phrasing.

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 tool has 6 parameters, all documented, and a clear description with sibling differentiation, it is almost complete. No output schema is present, but the description explains the semantic intent, and annotations cover mutation flags. A slight gap is the lack of expected return value or error conditions, but these are not essential for a straightforward create-like operation.

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 schema provides full coverage of all 6 parameters with individual descriptions, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema already fully documents fields like domain, record_type, data, ttl, and priority.

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 ('Add a DNS record') and differentiates it from the sibling tool by specifying 'without overwriting existing records of the same type (PATCH)'. It also names the alternative tool to imply the intended usage scope.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use this tool to add a record while preserving existing ones, and use 'replace_dns_records instead when exactly one record should exist'. This gives the agent a direct decision rule between the two tools.

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