set_nameservers

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that propagation is asynchronous and that the tool waits or reports in-progress status. It also warns that moving nameservers off GoDaddy will stop serving existing DNS records, which is essential behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose, async behavior, and critical warning are all front-loaded and concise. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive tool with a clear schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, blocking semantics, and consequences. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and set expectations for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters, including the 2-13 count constraint and full-set replacement semantics. The description reinforces these points but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific action—"Replace the authoritative nameservers for a domain"—with a concrete resource and count constraint. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling DNS record tools by warning that those records will no longer be served after the change.

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 clear context: this tool changes delegation at the registry level, not individual records. It warns against use when GoDaddy DNS management is still desired, implicitly differentiating it from update_dns_record and related siblings, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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