infomaniak_dns_update_record

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

The description discloses a crucial behavioral trait: the two-phase commit process. It explains that the first call previews changes and returns a token, while the second call applies them. This goes well beyond the annotations (which only indicate readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true) and adds critical context for the agent to understand the tool's state-changing workflow.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by the two-phase mechanism. Every word earns its place 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?

For a mutation tool with two-phase commit, 7 parameters, and an output schema, the description captures the essential workflow and the meaning of the confirmation_token. The existence of an output schema covers return values, and the required parameters (zone, record_id) are self-evident from the schema. The explanation is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the confirmation_token's role by mentioning 'same params + token' in the two-phase commit, which is valuable. However, other parameters (ttl, type, source, target) are not elaborated; the description only generically says 'one or more fields' rather than listing them. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 states precisely: 'Update one or more fields of a DNS record.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like infomaniak_dns_create_record and infomaniak_dns_delete_record. The mention of 'one or more fields' adds scope.

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 conveys clear usage context: it is for updating existing DNS records, and the two-phase commit explains the process. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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