Attach service DNS record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it constrains the target zone type (owned forward, not secondary/suspended), explains the IP ownership rule, and states the dns:write requirement. It does not clarify whether an existing record is overwritten or what happens on conflict, which is a minor gap given the destructive hint.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by tightly packed constraints, exclusions, an alternative, and an auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, alternative, and permissions well enough for correct selection and invocation. However, it does not describe the return value or error behavior (e.g., what happens if the record already exists), which would be useful since no output schema is provided to fill that gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by stating that the provided ip must belong to the service (a constraint not present in the schema) and that A/AAAA default to the service IP when ip is omitted. It does not elaborate on ttl, target, or name handling, but those are covered by the schema.

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 ('creates an A/AAAA/CNAME record') and immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming upsert_dns_record for arbitrary record content. The scope ('owned forward DNS zone', 'using the service's own IP') further disambiguates it from generic DNS record creation tools.

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?

Explicitly gives when to use (point a DNS name at a service), when not to use ('Not for secondary/suspended zones'), the alternative for other cases ('For arbitrary record content use upsert_dns_record instead'), and a required permission ('Requires dns:write when using an API key'). This is comprehensive guidance with no inference needed.

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