Set Dns Config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It offers one useful empirical note (error 2007 for a bad TYPE value) but omits permission requirements, whether existing DNS settings are overwritten, and reversibility — and the note references a 'TYPE' value that does not exist in this tool's schema, which muddies rather than clarifies behavior.

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 text is short and the purpose line is front-loaded, so it is not bloated. However, the second sentence concerns an out-of-scope parameter and an opaque error code, so one of the two sentences does not clearly earn its place in this tool's context.

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?

For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, three undocumented parameters, and no inline parameter meaning, the description is far too thin: an agent cannot learn what a valid call looks like or what will change. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input side is essentially uncovered.

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 0% across three parameters (primary_dns, secondary_dns, enable_cache), and the description explains none of them — no format, no meaning of empty-string defaults, no effect of enable_cache. Instead it discusses a 'TYPE' parameter absent from the schema, so it adds confusion rather than compensating for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb + resource, '修改 DNS 配置' (Modify DNS configuration), which an agent can immediately associate with the set_dns_config / get_dns_config pair. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_dns_config or get_multi_line_dns beyond the natural write-vs-read naming.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, what prerequisites exist, or which sibling (e.g. get_dns_config for reading) to prefer. The only extra sentence is a value quirk, not usage guidance.

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