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 disclosure burden for a mutation tool. It never states whether this is a partial or full replace, whether omitted optional fields are left untouched or cleared, what permissions are required, or whether the change is reversible. 'Returns: Updated DNS record details' adds nothing beyond the existing output schema.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose, followed by a compact Args list and a Returns line. Given the 0% schema coverage, enumerating the parameters earns its space, though a few entries are pure name restatement.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the definition covers the argument inventory and return shape (which is also covered by the output schema) but omits update semantics, permission requirements, and failure modes. It is minimally usable but leaves meaningful gaps for a write operation.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the arg list in the description is doing real work: it flags zone_id/record_id as 32-character hex strings, marks ttl as seconds, and identifies which fields are optional. However, entries like 'type: Record type (optional)' and 'priority: Priority (optional)' merely restate the parameter name and add no value over the bare schema.

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.' An agent can distinguish it from create_dns_record_tool and delete_dns_record_tool by the verb alone. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the CRUD sibling set makes the role obvious.

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 versus get_dns_record_tool, list_dns_records_tool, or create_dns_record_tool, nor any prerequisite or conflict conditions. The only cue is the domain-implied 'update', which the agent infers from the name rather than the description.

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