Apply DNS template

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

Annotations already declare destructive and open-world, but the description adds concrete consequences: the written records can change public DNS answers, overwrite=true replaces conflicting records, all writes pass the same API validation, quotas, and conflict rules, and dns:write is required for API keys. It even recommends preview to inspect the exact changes before applying. This is rich disclosure beyond structured 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?

Five short sentences, each earning its place, with the core action front-loaded. No filler or redundancy; the progression from action to side effects to validation to preview to auth is logical.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: side effects on public DNS, destructive overwrite behavior, safety recommendation (preview), auth requirement, and validation/quotas. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 preview, overwrite, zone_id, template, and parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of preview and overwrite but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Apply a backend-defined DNS template to a native forward zone' — and distinguishes the operation from manual record writes by noting records pass the same validation, quotas, and conflict rules. It does not name a specific sibling tool (e.g., list_dns_templates or upsert_dns_record), so it falls just short of the sibling-differentiation bar.

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?

Recommends 'Prefer preview=true first to show the user exactly which records a template would write before changing the zone,' which is a clear context and safe-order guideline. It also notes the dns:write requirement, but stops short of explicitly stating when to choose this tool over manual record writes or naming alternatives.

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