Create TXT Record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the crucial operational nuance an agent could not infer: existing TXT records with the same name are preserved and the new value is appended, with no duplicate inserted for an identical value. It does not mention permission requirements or propagation/timing behavior, which is a modest remaining gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and use cases, then side effects, then the handoff to alternative tools. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the name or title.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, applicability, side effects, and alternatives. The only missing piece is what the call returns or whether propagation is immediate, which is a minor gap given the annotations already signal safety and idempotency.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns an extra point by clarifying how the `name` parameter behaves as a matching key against existing records. It adds nothing about `ttl` beyond the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Add a TXT record (text data) to a domain") and enumerates concrete use cases (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, domain verification). It also names the sibling tools used for a different operation, so an agent can distinguish it from save_dns_records and delete_dns_records without opening any 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 states explicitly when this tool applies and, crucially, when it does not: to change or remove a TXT value, an agent is routed to save_dns_records or delete_dns_records, and told to check list_dns_records first. That is a complete when/when-not/alternative chain.

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