Create DDNS token

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false) with no secrets-handling or auth info. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the full token is returned only once, allow_from can restrict source IPs, and dns:write is required when using an API key. That is real context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover rate/return format in depth (rate limit is left to the schema).

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?

Four tight sentences with zero filler; the creation scope leads, followed by purpose semantics, IP restriction, one-time token return, and permission requirement. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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 supplies the key precondition (verified customer-owned zone), the critical return caveat (token shown once), and the auth requirement (dns:write). It could say more about what happens on expiry or about the returned token's non-retrievability after creation, but the essentials an agent needs are present.

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 purpose, allow_from, name_pattern, record_types, and rate_limit_per_minute thoroughly. The description's explanations of purpose and allow_from largely restate the schema descriptions rather than adding syntax or edge-case detail beyond them. 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 with scope: 'Create a narrow DNS updater token for one hostname/pattern inside a verified customer-owned zone.' This clearly distinguishes it from list_ddns_tokens and revoke_ddns_token, and the adjective 'narrow' plus 'verified customer-owned zone' conveys the constraint profile up front.

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?

The description explains what each purpose value is for (ddns = A/AAAA updates, acme = TXT under _acme-challenge), which guides the purpose field choice. However, it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like revoke_ddns_token or the broader DNS record tools, nor does it give an explicit 'do not use for X' exclusion. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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