Name-серверы домена

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

The description adds context about the return value (delegation status, NS update tasks) but does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Given readOnlyHint=false, the ambiguity about possible state changes is not resolved. This is a gap, though not a direct contradiction.

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, concise, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's operation and output.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (NS list, delegation status, NS update tasks). This is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect from the tool.

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% coverage with a clear description for the fqdn parameter. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable since the schema already explains the parameter fully.

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 uses a specific verb 'Возвращает' (returns) and identifies the resource (name-серверы домена) and scope (host + IP-адреса, статус делегирования and задачи обновления NS). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_domain or update_domain_name_servers, which have different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_dns_records or get_domain. Usage is implied by the tool's purpose, but there is no guidance on exclusions or alternative selection.

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