update_ptr_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds the multi-record delimiter behavior ('Несколько записей передаются разделителем %0A'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose that the 'confirm' parameter must be true to execute, which is a behavioral gate, nor does it mention any side effects or reversibility. The description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core action. The first sentence states the purpose and endpoint; the second adds the delimiter detail. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the endpoint from the behavior.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It doesn't mention the confirm gate explicitly (though the schema does), nor does it describe what a successful response looks like or error conditions. The sibling list includes get_ptr_record, so an agent might benefit from a pointer to that for verification. Overall, it's minimally complete but not rich.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the multi-record delimiter behavior for the 'ptr' parameter, which is beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain the 'confirm' parameter's role beyond the schema's 'Нужно true, чтобы выполнить операцию.' Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Обновить PTR-запись для IP-адреса' (update PTR record for IP address), and includes the API endpoint 'ip/update_ptr'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ptr_record. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling get_ptr_record, so it loses one point for not naming the alternative.

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 implies usage context by specifying the resource (IP address PTR record) and the multi-record delimiter '%0A'. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ptr_record or set_main_ip, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a server ID or IP ownership. The usage is implied but not fully explicit.

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