add_dns_domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a real behavioral fact the annotations omit — the required pdns/edit permission — which is valuable for auth planning. It still omits conflict/duplicate handling and reversibility, but given annotations carry the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentence front-loading the action, with the endpoint and permission requirement as compact trailing clauses. Every phrase earns its place with no filler.

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 create tool with no output schema and annotations covering the mutation profile, the description plus schema are mostly sufficient. The notable gap is the unresolved overlap with the add_dns_zone sibling, which the description does not address.

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 both parameters ('name' with an example, 'confirm' with its meaning) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, 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 names specific verbs and resources ('Create a DNS zone and add a domain to the domains table') plus the underlying endpoint (pdns/add_domain), so the action is unambiguous. However, it fails to differentiate from the sibling add_dns_zone, and by mentioning both 'create a DNS zone' and 'add a domain' it blurs the boundary between the two tools.

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 states a permission prerequisite (pdns/edit) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus add_dns_zone/add_dns_subdomain, and no exclusions or context for choosing it. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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