Add domain parent DS

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds valuable context beyond structured fields: it warns that mismatched DS records can prevent validating resolvers from resolving the domain, and states the API-key auth requirement. It does not describe what exactly gets destroyed or the queued operation's return behavior, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 definition is three sentences and front-loads the core action. The warning and auth sentences are informative and earn their place, though the middle sentence is more directive than descriptive and could be tightened.

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 queued mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the key operational context: it is a write operation on the parent zone, requires domains:manage with an API key, and has a resolution-breaking failure mode if DS records do not match the child DNSKEY. Return-value behavior is not needed because no output schema exists.

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 three parameters with formats and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Queue adding public DNSSEC DS records at the parent zone for an owned domain.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings such as delete_domain_parent_ds or set_dnssec.

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?

It provides clear context and a prerequisite: 'Confirm the records match the child zone's DNSKEY' and 'Requires domains:manage when using an API key.' It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, but the conditions for safe use are stated.

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