Update Dns Record Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It implies mutation of an existing record but never states whether this is a partial or full update, whether omitted fields are preserved, whether values are reversible, what permissions are required, or whether the change propagates immediately.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is structurally clean. But for a 9-parameter mutation tool this brevity reads as under-specification rather than discipline, since no sentence earns extra value by being absent.

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 explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and 9 parameters (2 required) the description leaves critical gaps: it never mentions that zone_id and record_id are required, nor that the remaining fields are optional partial-update inputs.

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% across all 9 parameters, so the schema already documents every field's meaning. The description adds no parameter-level information (e.g., that only supplied fields change), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing DNS record'), so an agent knows this mutates a record rather than creating or deleting one. However, it adds essentially nothing beyond the tool name and title, which are near-identical restatements, and it offers no detail that distinguishes it from the sibling update_page_rule_tool / update_waf_rule_tool pattern beyond the resource noun.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_dns_record_tool, delete_dns_record_tool, or get_dns_record_tool. It does not state that the record must already exist, nor mention any prerequisite such as fetching the record first to obtain record_id.

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