add_dns_zone

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation on an open-world target, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a concrete authorization requirement (pdns/edit) that the annotations do not convey, which is valuable, but it says nothing about idempotency, what happens on an existing zone, or error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the action and the precondition front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though it is arguably too terse to exploit the space available.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with a nested SOA object and the required confirm flag, the description is thin. Annotations and the fully-covered schema carry most of the load, but details like idempotency or behavior when the zone already exists are absent, leaving it only adequate.

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% and every parameter, including the nested SOA object and its fields, is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource (create a DNS zone on the authoritative PowerDNS server) and even names the underlying API call (pdns/add_zone). It is clearly distinguishable in kind from reads like get_dns_zone, but it never contrasts itself with the adjacent writers add_dns_domain or add_dns_subdomain, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 useful precondition (requires pdns/edit rights), which is real when-to-use context. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this over add_dns_domain/add_dns_subdomain or what to do if the zone already exists, so 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.