add_dns_record

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond that: the required pdns/edit permission, the upsert nature ('add or modify'), and conditional handling for SRV and SOA validation errors. It still does not say what happens on conflict or whether an existing record is overwritten, but it is well above minimum.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then permission, then the two field-specific caveats. No filler, though the SRV/SOA guidance is somewhat terse and would benefit from a little more connective structure.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the permission gate, and how to handle the non-obvious SRV and SOA fields. The mandatory confirm flag is adequately documented in the schema, so its absence from the prose is not a gap.

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 3 is the baseline. The description goes further by grouping the SRV fields (proto/priority/weight/port/target) and explaining that mname/rname only need filling when SOA checks fail, which is not evident from the per-parameter schema text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add or modify a DNS record in a zone') and even names the underlying API endpoint (pdns/add_dns). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings such as add_dns_domain, add_dns_subdomain, or add_dns_zone, so an agent must infer the record-vs-zone/domain boundary.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('requires pdns/edit permission') and conditional field guidance for SRV and SOA cases, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no explicit statement of when to pick this tool over delete_dns_record, update_ptr_record, or the zone/domain/subdomain adders; usage is only implied.

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