Export DNS zone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the required scope (dns:read with an API key) and the precise contents that are excluded from the export, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences: the core action and output format lead, the exclusions follow, and the auth requirement closes. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries distinct 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does: a BIND-style zone file containing desired-state records, explicitly excluding system-managed SOA/NS/DNSSEC and PTR records. Auth requirements and scope are also covered, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents zone_id. The description adds only the indirect qualifier 'native forward DNS zone', implying the ID must reference such a zone, but gives no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for a fully covered single param.

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?

The description states a specific verb (export), the resource (a native forward DNS zone), and the output artifact (a BIND-style zone file), which distinguishes it from siblings like import_dns_zone, get_dns_zone, and list_dns_zones. An agent knows exactly what it produces without opening the 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?

It scopes usage well by stating what is NOT handled here (system-managed SOA/apex NS/DNSSEC wire records, PTR/reverse DNS), which implicitly routes the agent elsewhere. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool or a positive 'use this when you want to migrate/back up a zone' trigger, so the guidance is clear but not fully directional.

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