Set guest nameservers

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

Annotations already flag destructive and non-idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the connectivity risk of an unreachable resolver, that type=own clears saved custom addresses, that the route is not idempotency-keyed so an uncertain change must not be replayed, and the exact auth requirements (services:manage plus a full-access API key). This is genuinely additive rather than restating the hints.

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 action and its precondition, then mode semantics, then return behavior and auth. Roughly six dense sentences with little waste, though the return-value and verification guidance could be tightened slightly.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully: it documents the unchanged=true short-circuit, the noty UUID outcome, the follow-up wait_for_event and verification steps, plus auth and non-idempotency. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that ns1-ns4 must be omitted in own mode, that custom mode requires ns1/ns2 with ns3/ns4 optional, and that values are IPv4/IPv6 addresses and never a hostname. Only the orderNo parameter is left entirely to 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 ('Change DNS resolvers inside a supported Linux server') and scopes it to the guest OS, which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like set_domain_nameservers (registrar-side) and set_private_network_dns. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Explicitly tells the agent to call get_guest_nameservers first and confirm the exact service and resolver change before mutating. It also gives the selection rule between the two enum modes (own = restore defaults and clear custom addresses; custom = requires ns1/ns2) and warns that an unreachable resolver can interrupt guest connectivity.

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