Обновление name-серверов домена

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait: it replaces the entire list, which indicates a mutating operation and is more specific than the annotation readOnlyHint=false. However, it does not mention potential side effects like propagation delays, whether the operation is reversible, or if partial failures can occur. The annotations provide idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds minimal context beyond the replacement semantics.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and key input format. It contains no fluff, but it is very brief and could arguably include a note about the replacement effect. Still, it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: it states the action and input shape. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., domain must exist) or how to verify the result (e.g., use the corresponding get tool). Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description's mention of 'массив объектов {host, ips?}' merely summarizes the schema without adding extra meaning. Baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Заменяет' (replaces) with a clear resource: the list of name servers of a domain. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_domain_name_servers or update_dns_record, and the scope is precise.

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 context via 'replaces' (you use this when you want to set the entire name server list), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_domain_name_servers for reading current settings. No exclusions are provided, but the intent is reasonably clear.

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