edit_dns_subdomain

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

Beyond the annotations, which already flag readOnly=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds an explicit permission precondition and names the underlying endpoint pdns/edit_subdomain. This is useful auth context and does not contradict the annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action comes firsteb, and the permission note is the only extra piece of information, so every word 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?

Together with the schema and annotations, the description is adequate for a simple mutation: the purpose, permission requirement, and required confirm flag are all discoverable. However, it does not explain what an 'update' actually changes or when to use this tool, leaving minor gaps for an agent.

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. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already explains id, confirm, and server_id, including the requirement that confirm must be true.

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 clear action and resource: 'Обновить сабдомен' ('update subdomain'), which is distinct from sibling tools like add_dns_subdomain and delete_dns_subdomain. It does not specify what fields or aspects of the subdomain can be updated, so it stops short of full detail.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives. The only added context, 'Требует права pdns/edit', is an authorization requirement, not a usage rule; nothing tells the agent to prefer this over add_dns_subdomain or delete_dns_subdomain.

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