Обновление DNS-записи

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal extra context: it mentions 'Использует API v2' (uses API v2) and the need to provide type and new fields. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility, which are not covered by annotations. This is a partial enhancement over structured data.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence provides useful information: what it does, API version, and required inputs.

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 tool has 12 parameters and supports 6 DNS record types, with conditional requirements (e.g., SRV needs host, port, service, protocol). The description is too brief to guide an agent on which fields are relevant for each type. It does not mention response behavior or any type-specific logic. Given the tool's complexity, the description is inadequate for full autonomous invocation.

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 each parameter already described in the schema. The description only restates that type and new fields must be passed, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource: 'Обновляет существующую DNS-запись по ID' (Updates an existing DNS record by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_dns_record and delete_dns_record by specifying the update operation and the requirement of a record ID.

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 gives clear context for use: updating an existing DNS record with a known ID. It implies when this tool is appropriate (update scenario) and notes the need to pass the record type and new fields. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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