add_dns_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the required pdns/edit permission, the upsert semantics ('add or update'), and error-recovery guidance for SOA. It does omit that confirm must be true to execute, which is a notable guard the agent must know.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose then prerequisites then type-specific detail. No filler, though the final 'fill them in on error' clause is slightly cryptic out of context.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and the trickiest record types. It omits mention of the mandatory confirm flag and increase_soa_serial default, but those are documented in the schema, so the gap is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-field conditional meaning the schema lacks: it ties proto/priority/weight/port/target together specifically for SRV records and explains the mname/rname practical trigger (SOA check failure). That is genuine guidance beyond the flat per-parameter descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb (add or update) and resource (DNS record in a zone) plus an internal API hint (pdns/add_dns). It clearly contrasts with the delete_dns_record sibling by verb, but never names or distinguishes itself from other write siblings like add_dns_zone or edit_dns_subdomain.

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?

Gives actionable context: the pdns/edit permission requirement, when to populate SRV fields, and the SOA-fill-on-error tip. However, it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edit_dns_subdomain or delete_dns_record, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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