update_dns_record

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

Annotations already signal destructiveness, and the description adds a crucial behavioral detail: this is a FULL replacement where omitted fields are not preserved. It also discloses protected record types (GoDaddy-managed SOA and apex NS) that cannot be replaced, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive mutation.

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. The primary action is front-loaded, the full-replacement requirement is stated next, and the protected-record restriction closes the description. 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?

Given the destructive annotation and rich input schema, the description covers the essential operational context: how to identify the target record, the all-or-nothing replacement semantics, and the records that cannot be touched. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to detail return values for a PUT mutation.

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%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters with type-specific meanings. The description reinforces that name, type, data, and ttl must all be supplied, which is redundant with the required array. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, though the 'omitted fields are not preserved' note is mildly informative.

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 uses a specific verb ('Replace'), identifies the resource ('existing DNS record'), and pins the target via 'recordId from list_dns_records'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from add_dns_record and delete_dns_record by framing it as a full replacement operation.

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 makes clear this is for replacing an existing record, and the sibling list makes alternatives obvious. It explicitly excludes GoDaddy-managed SOA and apex NS records, but does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer add_dns_record or delete_dns_record instead. The usage context is clear, but exclusions are partial.

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