add_dns_record

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

Annotations already mark this as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds useful non-obvious context: the required permission and the conditional SRV/SOA field handling. It does not contradict the annotations, and it does not overstate destructive behavior, consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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 three short purposeful sentences: operation, permission, and conditional field guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 tool, the combination of the description and the 100% schema coverage covers required parameters, permission prerequisites, and the most important conditional fields. The lack of an output schema means return behavior is not described, but the mutation-focused annotations reduce that burden.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by grouping SRV parameters and flagging mname/rname as practically required for SOA validation. Not every parameter is elaborated, but the schema already provides solid per-parameter explanations.

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 states a specific action ('Добавить или изменить DNS-запись в зоне') and identifies the target resource as a DNS record within a zone, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like delete_dns_record, add_dns_domain, or add_dns_subdomain. It also names the internal endpoint pdns/add_dns, making the operation unambiguous.

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 practical usage context: it requires pdns/edit rights, explains that SRV records need proto/priority/weight/port/target, and notes that mname/rname may be required for SOA checks. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives, so it stops short of the highest score.

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