kas_dns

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

Key behavioral constraints are disclosed: the trailing dot requirement for zone_host, the string requirement for record_aux, and the need to obtain record_id from list before update/delete. The note that reset restores defaults also implies destructive behavior. No annotations are present, so the text carries the full burden and does so effectively.

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 well-structured with a concise header, an IMPORTANT note, and a bulleted action list. It front-loads the core purpose and uses examples to illustrate constraints, ensuring every sentence contributes without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description is not obligated to explain return values, but it covers all five actions and their required parameters. It is mostly complete, though the update action's '...fields' is vague and could specify which fields are editable. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct tool 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?

The schema only documents pick and filter (50% coverage), leaving action and params generic. The description adds meaning by specifying exact parameter names and formats for each action (e.g., zone_host, record_aux: "0", record_name="" for root) and clarifying the optional pick/filter behavior. This goes well beyond the schema's structured data.

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 opens with 'Manage DNS records (A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT, SRV...)' which clearly states the verb and resource. The explicit list of record types and DNS-specific scope distinguish it from sibling tools like kas_domain or kas_ssl.

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 organizes usage by action (list, create, update, delete, reset) with required params for each, providing clear context on when to invoke each action. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the DNS-specific scope makes that unnecessary.

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