dns_add_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the required OAuth scope (dns:write) and that replacement is triggered by supplying the old value, implying a destructive overwrite path. It says nothing about duplicate-record handling, idempotency, or what happens if the zone does not exist.

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 front-loaded sentence with the primary action first, the type list second, the edit path third, and the auth scope last. It is tightly written, though the long parenthetical type list is somewhat expendable.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the edit mechanism and auth, which is the minimum viable set. It omits return/response behavior and conflict semantics an agent would want before writing DNS records.

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 every parameter including replace, tag, priority, weight and port is already documented in the schema. The description only re-states the replace semantics and the record-type enumeration, adding no format or interaction details beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Add a record') and enumerates the supported record types, so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not name or contrast with siblings like dns_delete_record, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'or edit one by passing the old value in replace' signals that this same tool handles edits rather than a separate update tool, which is useful. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over dns_get_zone/other siblings, no prerequisites beyond the scope string, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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