mcp-infoblox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool updates an existing record, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether updates are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a mutation operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage hint. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what happens during updates (e.g., validation, side effects), response format, or error cases, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate safely.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('ref' and 'fields'). The description adds minimal value by mentioning the reference comes 'from a search first,' but doesn't elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('existing DNS record'), specifying it requires an object reference. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_*_record' by focusing on updates, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update-related tools (none listed).

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 provides some guidance by mentioning 'Get the reference from a search first,' implying this tool should be used after a search operation. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'delete_dns_record' or clarify prerequisites beyond the reference. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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