arvan_create_a_record

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with no destructive or idempotent behavior. Description confirms creation but adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., overwrite behavior, idempotency, side effects).

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?

Single concise sentence with front-loaded key information. No wasted words, but may be too sparse. Structure is effective for a simple tool.

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?

Lacks details on domain parameter, output, error conditions, and differentiation from sibling tools. Without output schema, response expectations are unclear. Tool complexity is moderate, but description is not 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?

Description adds meaning for two of five parameters (name, ips) by explaining they are linked, but does not describe domain, ttl, or cloud. With 0% schema coverage, this partial coverage is moderately helpful but insufficient.

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?

Description clearly states it creates an A record, specifying the resource type (A record) and action (create). It mentions name and IPs, distinguishing from CNAME or generic DNS record tools. Lacks explicit differentiation from arvan_create_dns_record, but the type specificity is strong.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arvan_create_dns_record. The word 'Convenience' suggests a simplified use case, but no explicit context for selection.

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