update_dns_access_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the mutation and safety profile. The description adds only that the list must already exist but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as the impact of apply_immediately or whether the operation is a partial update (only provided fields). No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single 7-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and target. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The combination of full schema coverage, appropriate annotations, and an output schema covers much of the context needed. However, the description omits practical guidance such as how updates affect the existing list and whether changes are applied immediately or require a separate apply action, making it only moderately complete for an update tool.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description in the input schema (e.g., aclaction lists allowed values, apply_immediately explains its effect). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the action ('Update') and the target resource ('existing DNS Resolver access list'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_dns_access_list and delete_dns_access_list. It is specific and 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_dns_access_list or search_dns_access_lists, nor does it mention prerequisites like the access list needing to exist before updating. There is no indication of when to apply changes or that apply_dns_resolver_changes should follow if apply_immediately is false.

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