dns_set_txt

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by specifying the destruction scope (all TXT records replaced, not appended) and what is preserved (A/MX/CNAME/NS), plus the force behavior around CAA/SRV. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 operation and its replacement semantics, then the alternative, then a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place; the ttl cross-reference is the one slightly wasteful note.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Given a destructive DNS mutation, the description supplies the needed context (destructive scope, preserved record types, the append alternative, force semantics), leaving only minor gaps like permissions.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: it documents all four args with meaning, including an example value for txtdata and an explanation of force (proceed when CAA/SRV present). The only weakness is ttl, which defers to 'см. dns_set_a' rather than defining the value inline.

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 (set a TXT record) and immediately clarifies the core semantic: it replaces all TXT records with one. The use cases (SPF, verification, DKIM) are named, and it is clearly distinguishable from dns_patch_record, which it explicitly contrasts with.

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 routes the agent: use dns_patch_record with add=... when appending to existing TXT records (e.g. verification + SPF) rather than this replacement tool. This is a named alternative plus the condition that selects it, so nothing is left to inference.

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