dns_patch_record

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and non-readOnly, and the description adds real context beyond that: it explains the merge pipeline, that other record types are untouched, and documents the force flag as 'continue despite CAA/SRV presence'. It doesn't spell out auth or rate-limit behavior, but for a destructive mutation the disclosed mechanics are substantial.

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 purpose and internal pipeline, then structured bullets and examples. Efficient given the complexity, though the three examples are a bit redundant with the bullets.

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?

The JSON-array formats, match/precedence semantics, force flag and multi-value use cases are all covered, which is what an agent needs to call this tool correctly. Output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden — and it does. Each of add/remove/replace is documented with format (JSON array), matching rules (match by fields except ttl), and precedence, plus fqdn/type/force defined, with worked examples. This fully compensates for the empty 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?

The description states a precise verb+resource+scope: partial modification of records of a single type, with the internal pipeline getData → merge → changeRecords. It distinguishes itself from siblings like dns_set_a/dns_set_txt/dns_set_records by framing this as a partial (add/remove/replace) operation rather than a full overwrite.

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 gives concrete usage conditions ('Удобно для многозначных TXT и нескольких MX') and semantics for add/remove/replace including the preemption rule (if replace is set, add and remove are ignored). It doesn't explicitly compare against sibling tools like dns_set_a or dns_set_records, so a 4 rather than 5.

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