infomaniak_manage_dnssec

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: the two-phase commit flow, plan + confirmation_token, TTL, and the read-only nature of check. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could have explicitly noted the destructive nature of enable/disable (which is only implied by 'remove DS record').

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 tightly written in three sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then providing the critical workflow and migration note. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool with three modes, a two-phase commit, and a migration note, the description is remarkably complete. The existence of an output schema covers return values, so the description focuses on the essential operational flow and legacy replacement, leaving no major gaps for an agent to misuse the 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 coverage is 100% for all three parameters, so the schema already fully describes domain, action, and confirmation_token. The description adds minimal new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the tool's purpose as unified DNSSEC management with three specific actions (check, enable, disable), each with an explicit verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on DNSSEC operations and noting it replaces the deprecated v0.9 trio.

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 strong usage context by explaining the two-phase commit for enable/disable and the 60-second confirmation_token TTL. It also gives explicit alternative guidance by naming the replaced trio (dnssec_check/enable/disable). However, it does not explicitly compare to other DNS record tools or state when not to use this tool.

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