dns_override

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'call action=help' and reveals nothing about side effects, whether changes are staged or applied immediately, restart/flush semantics, or other behavioral traits. The schema has hints, but the description itself is very thin.

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 short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the help pointer is actionable, making this efficient and well-structured.

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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. The action='help' escape hatch mitigates missing details, but the description alone doesn't explain behavior, prerequisites, or when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is barely sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description's tip to use action='help' adds a meta-level way to get per-action rules, which is helpful but does not add meaning beyond the schema's built-in documentation.

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 identifies a specific resource ('Unbound host overrides') and a verb ('Manage'), making the tool's domain clear. It doesn't enumerate the specific actions, but the schema's action enum covers that. The resource name distinguishes it from sibling tools like alias, bgp, or dhcp.

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 explicitly tells the agent to call action='help' for each action's fields and rules, which is a concrete usage directive. It doesn't contrast with sibling tools, but the specific resource makes the intended context clear and no exclusions are needed.

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