edit_dns_subdomain

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

Annotations already signal a mutating, non-destructive operation; the description adds the auth requirement (pdns/edit) and confirms the update semantics. It does not disclose side effects or exactly what changes are applied, but the permission note provides some context beyond 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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a necessary permission note. No wasted words.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. It lacks any mention of what fields the update changes or the effect of confirm, and there is no output schema, but the risk is low.

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%: id, confirm, and server_id each have schema descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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 the action ('Обновить сабдомен' = update subdomain) with a clear verb and resource. The endpoint reference and sibling names (add/delete/list_dns_subdomains) make the operation distinguishable from related DNS 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus add_dns_subdomain or delete_dns_subdomain. It only states a permission requirement; any usage context must be inferred from the tool name and siblings.

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