Change rDNS

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial context: propagation replacement, trailing-dot removal, reserved VPSnet names being blocked, OAuth scope services:manage, API-key full-access requirement, and lack of idempotency-keying. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then auth, then idempotency. Every sentence carries distinct operational value with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, value constraints, auth requirements, propagation behavior, and idempotency caveat. Nothing essential 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already carries a description, including the PTR validation rules. The description repeats the canonical length/label constraints and adds that reserved names are blocked, but does not add much new meaning for the individual parameters beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Set'), resource ('customer PTR override'), and scope ('for an address returned by get_rdns'). Distinguishes itself from sibling read tool get_rdns and clear_rdns, so an agent can route correctly.

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?

Clear context: use it to set a PTR override for an address returned by get_rdns, and notes the value replaces the previous public PTR after propagation. It does not explicitly name when-not to use it or contrast with clear_rdns, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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