add_dns_record

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

Beyond annotations (openWorldHint, destructiveHint: false), the description discloses that creation is synchronous and that the response includes a recordId, plus domain-specific constraints like CNAME being prohibited at the apex and SOA/apex NS being managed by GoDaddy. This gives agents realistic expectations of side effects and edge cases.

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 four focused sentences: purpose and non-destructive guarantee first, then naming rules, then type-specific requirements, then synchronization/response. Each sentence encodes distinct useful information without fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical operational details: record-name relativity, TTL bounds, type-specific required fields, unsupported record placements, managed records, and the response including recordId. An agent has enough to call the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds high-value semantics: it defines the relative-name syntax, explains that MX/SRV require priority (SRV also port/weight), and notes CNAME cannot be set at the apex. This goes well beyond the individual property descriptions in the schema.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Add a DNS record to a domain's zone') and immediately adds a distinguishing scope ('without touching existing records'), which separates it from update/delete/list siblings. It also explains the important naming convention ('@ = bare domain, www = www.example.com, * = wildcard'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear context by stating the tool adds new records without modifying existing ones, which implies its appropriate use case. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like update_dns_record or delete_dns_record as alternatives or state when to choose them, so it stops 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.