configurar_dns_servidor

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

The description discloses that the tool modifies the DNS service by activating it and adding records, but it does not mention side effects such as whether existing records are overwritten, whether the service is idempotent, or any prerequisites beyond the server being a Server-PT. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does not address reversibility or error conditions, leaving behavioral transparency insufficient.

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?

The description is concise, with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a parameter example and a usage note. Each sentence contributes essential information, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main action, parameter format, and a client-facing requirement. However, it lacks mention of any preconditions (e.g., the server must be properly configured with an IP) or potential errors, which could be useful for an agent. Still, for the typical use case of configuring DNS, it is fairly complete.

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?

The description explains the registros parameter format explicitly with an example: {'nombre.dominio': 'ip'}. This is critical because the schema only defines registros as an object with string values, without specifying key/value semantics. The servidor parameter is self-explanatory, and while the description adds no extra meaning to it, the registros format is fully clarified, significantly aiding correct invocation.

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 exactly what the tool does: it activates the DNS service on a Server-PT and adds A records. The verbs 'activa' and 'añade' are specific, and the resource 'Server-PT' is clear. It distinguishes from siblings like configurar_dhcp by focusing on DNS records specifically.

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 context on when to use it: after configuring the DNS server, clients must point to this server's IP via DHCP or manual settings. This implies the tool is for DNS setup, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like configurar_dhcp_servidor. There's clear context but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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