combell_dns_records_update

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

Discloses the read-modify-write mechanism ('current record is read first and only the fields you pass are changed') and the 'SIDE EFFECT: changes live DNS' warning. Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the partial-update pattern and the live-DNS impact, which are not in annotations.

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 concise sentences plus a side-effect note. The purpose and behavior are front-loaded, followed by a critical limitation, then the side-effect warning. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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 an 11-parameter tool with rich schema descriptions and annotations, the description covers the update mechanism, the SRV exception, and the live-DNS side effect. It doesn't mention return values, but no output schema exists and that's not essential for calling the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that only passed fields are changed (partial update) and that SRV fields are non-editable, which affects how parameters should be used.

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: 'Update an existing DNS record.' Clearly distinguishes from siblings (create/delete/list/get) by describing the partial-update behavior and the SRV limitation, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 an explicit exclusion: SRV service/protocol/port/target cannot be edited; delete and recreate instead. This directly routes the agent to the correct alternative (delete+create) for that case, and the purpose statement implies using this tool for updating existing non-SRV records.

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