dns_update_primary_server

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update a primary server,' omitting whether the operation is destructive, the required permissions, or effects on related resources. The output schema exists but is not mentioned.

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 overly terse at 4 words. While concise, it sacrifices essential information for a tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, making it insufficient for accurate invocation.

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 the complexity of 4 parameters, required fields, and an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what fields are updatable, constraints, or return values, leaving major gaps for the agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description fails to add any meaning for parameters like 'address' or 'port.' The schema provides titles only, leaving the agent without sufficient context to populate fields correctly.

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 a primary server' clearly states the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like dns_create_primary_server or dns_delete_primary_server, lacking specificity on what aspects can be updated.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as dns_create_primary_server or dns_update_record. The description offers no context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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