combell_dns_records_create

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

The description explicitly warns 'SIDE EFFECT: changes live DNS', which is valuable behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations (which only say destructiveHint=false). It does not contradict annotations. It could add more context (e.g., propagation time, whether existing records are replaced), but the side-effect warning is a strong addition.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then a compact parameter-routing rule, then the side-effect warning. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 create tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential routing logic and side-effect warning. It doesn't describe the response/return value, but with no output schema and a create operation, that is a minor gap. The parameter grouping is sufficient for an agent to construct a valid call.

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 91%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by grouping parameters by record type and clarifying the SRV-specific set, which the schema does not do. It also clarifies record_name semantics ('Empty or '@' means the domain itself') beyond the schema's description.

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 specific verb ('Create') and resource ('DNS record on a domain'), and immediately distinguishes the two record-type families (standard vs SRV) with their required parameters. It clearly differentiates from siblings like combell_dns_records_update and combell_dns_records_delete by naming the create action.

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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance for which parameters to pass for which record types ('For A/AAAA/CNAME/MX/TXT/CAA/ALIAS/TLSA pass record_name + content (+ priority for MX); for SRV pass service, protocol, priority, weight, port and target'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling set makes the create-vs-update-vs-delete distinction obvious.

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