update_dns_host_override

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

The description simply restates the action 'Update' without adding behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, but the description does not explain idempotency, the effect of null fields, or whether changes are immediately applied. It adds no value beyond the 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 concise sentence: 'Update an existing DNS host override by ID'. It contains no redundant wording and is front-loaded with the action verb. Appropriate size for a tool whose schema and annotations already carry detailed information.

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?

Despite having annotations and an output schema, the description fails to clarify important update semantics. Specifically, it does not state whether null parameter values mean 'leave unchanged' or 'clear the field', nor does it warn that setting apply_immediately=false requires a separate apply step. This ambiguity could lead the agent to accidentally clear fields or forget to apply changes. The schema descriptions do not resolve the null behavior, leaving a significant completeness gap.

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 input schema provides descriptions for 100% of parameters, including clear semantics like 'New list of IP addresses' and 'Whether to apply changes immediately'. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it neither helps nor hurts. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update an existing DNS host override by ID' uses a specific verb (update) plus the exact resource (DNS host override) and the method (by ID). This clearly distinguishes it from create and delete siblings, and also from the DNS forwarder host override update tool.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing record (the word 'existing') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like create or delete, nor does it mention the need to first search for the override_id. The schema's override_id description hints at search_dns_host_overrides, but the description itself lacks this context. Usage is implied, not explicit.

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