Create DNS zone

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

Annotations only declare the safe-write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the pending-verification state, the ownership TXT location, what the API records about nameservers, the delegatedToPlatform/parentServedByPlatform warnings, zone.verification.next_step, and the required dns:write scope.

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-loads purpose and then proceeds through verification flow, warnings, and scoping in a dense but mostly non-redundant block. It is long and packed with near-prose clauses, so it is slightly heavy, but each sentence carries operational value and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does: verificationRecord, zone.verification.record.value, warning fields, and next_step are all described. For a create tool with verification semantics, an agent has everything needed to invoke and follow up correctly.

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 six parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond by framing when secondary parameters matter ('secondary zones ... require TSIG') and giving the TXT naming convention _vpsnet-dns.<zone>, but it does not walk through each parameter explicitly.

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+resource ('Create a forward DNS zone') and immediately scopes the two kinds ('Native zones are managed here; secondary zones AXFR from public primary DNS servers and require TSIG'). An agent can tell this apart from get_dns_zone, list_dns_zones and verify_dns_zone without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: read get_dns_zone.zone.verification.record.value first, use reissue_dns_zone_verification only when it is null/unrecoverable or the customer requests rotation, and call verify_dns_zone after adding the TXT. Names the alternative tools and the exact conditions that select them.

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