Update DNS record

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds genuine context beyond them: PUT full-replace semantics, the fact that a changed value can replace the live public DNS answer after publication, the prohibition on editing system-managed records, and the required dns:write scope. It does not clarify whether fields omitted from the request are cleared.

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, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism, then consequences, then constraints, then auth. Every sentence carries distinct, load-bearing information with no redundancy.

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 with no output schema, the description covers auth scope, record eligibility, replace semantics, and the externally visible consequence of changing a value. The only real gap is what happens to parameters not supplied in a PUT-style replace.

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 seven parameters with formats, ranges, and the type enum. The description reinforces that value, TTL, and comment are the replaceable fields but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Update), resource (forward DNS record), identifier mechanism (by its ID), and HTTP semantics (PUT) that clarify it is a full replace rather than a patch. It distinguishes itself from upsert_dns_record by scoping to an existing record identified by ID, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides prerequisites and constraints (system-managed records cannot be edited; requires dns:write with an API key) but never states when to choose this tool over upsert_dns_record or delete_dns_record plus re-creation. Usage is implied by the 'existing record by ID' framing 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.