technitium_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that list runs immediately without confirmation, that add requires confirm=true after user assent, that delete requires confirm=true plus the literal confirm_phrase '/api/zones/records/delete', and that ttl/preference are action- and type-scoped. It stops short of stating whether deletes are recoverable or what errors/return values look like.

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 with the action summary, then a scannable one-line-per-parameter block, then the confirmation workflow. No filler sentences; every line earns its place.

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 multi-action tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers parameters, confirmation gating, and the delete-then-add update pattern. Minor gaps remain: it never states which params are required per action, and it doesn't point to technitium_endpoint_help for edge cases.

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% and there are 9 parameters, so the description must compensate entirely — and it does, defining action, zone, name, type (including the full enum list A/AAAA/CNAME/PTR/NS/TXT/MX/DNAME/ANAME, which the schema lacks), value, ttl, preference, confirm and confirm_phrase with formats and examples. This is meaning the agent cannot get from the 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?

Opens with a specific verb triad plus resource: 'List, add or delete DNS records in a zone.' An agent can tell it operates on records rather than zones or endpoints, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like technitium_zones. The three actions it multiplexes are enumerated, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Gives concrete operational routing: 'To change a record, delete the old one and add the new one,' and ties confirm/confirm_phrase to add versus delete. It doesn't name alternative sibling tools or state when to prefer technitium_resolve or technitium_zones, but the intra-tool when-to-use guidance is clear.

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