update_ptr_record

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, matching the 'update' action without contradiction. The description adds one behavioral detail beyond annotations: multiple records are passed with %0A separator. However, it does not clarify side effects, whether existing PTR records are replaced, or the role of the confirm flag, leaving a partially transparent picture for a mutating operation.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, then provides the useful multi-record delimiter note. There is no redundant or filler content, and it earns its place with both purpose and a parameter clarification.

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 4-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the multi-record encoding, but leaves gaps: the purpose of the confirm flag is not explained, nor is the expected result or error behavior. The lack of return-value documentation is notable because no output schema exists, so the description could have carried more of that burden.

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% with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that multiple records are transmitted using %0A as a delimiter, directly clarifying the intended format of the 'ptr' parameter. This adds meaningful semantic information about the parameter's value structure.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Обновить PTR-запись для IP-адреса' (update PTR record for IP address), which makes the action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_ptr_record or add_dns_record, but the resource and verb are sufficiently distinct. The parenthetical API name 'ip/update_ptr' reinforces the intent without fully distinguishing it from alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'to read a PTR record use get_ptr_record' or 'use add_dns_record for regular DNS records'. The only usable context is the API endpoint and the multi-record delimiter note, which is more about parameter usage than tool selection. No when-not or exclusionary conditions are given.

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