Создание DNS-записи

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

Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds the specific SRV parameter exception and supported record types, but does not disclose other behavioral details like validation or effect on existing records.

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?

Two short sentences, each serving a purpose: one defines the action and scope, the other highlights a critical parameter exception. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential use case and the SRV special case, while the schema details all 11 parameters. Given the lack of an output schema and the straightforward nature of a create operation, the description is sufficient, though it could mention requirements like domain existence.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so parameter semantics are fully documented. The description adds a concise reminder that SRV uses host/port/service/protocol instead of value, which complements the schema but does not significantly exceed it.

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 clearly states the tool creates DNS records, enumerates supported types (A, AAAA, TXT, CNAME, MX, SRV), and scopes it to domains or subdomains. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_dns_record or delete_dns_record.

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 implies usage for creating DNS records but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. The API v2 note is more implementation detail than usage guidance. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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