impreza_set_nameservers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates that the operation is a replacement ('replace'), which implies mutation and overwrites existing nameservers. However, it does not disclose crucial behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, propagation delays, reversibility, or side effects like potential downtime. The disclosure is adequate but minimal.

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 sentence of 13 words, front-loading the main action and constraint. Every part is essential, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It efficiently communicates the tool's core purpose.

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 is a simple operation with 2 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose and parameter constraint. However, it lacks details about expected outcomes (e.g., success response, propagation time), prerequisites (e.g., domain ownership, authorization), and edge cases. Given the absence of annotations, more context is needed for full completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters described. The description adds no new information about parameters beyond the schema; it only reinforces the 2–4 hostname constraint already present in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Replace' and the resource 'authoritative nameservers for a domain'. It specifies the number of hostnames (2–4) and the use case (point to Impreza DNS or external). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like impreza_add_dns_record, which handle individual DNS records within a domain.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to point a domain at Impreza DNS or an external provider. It implies the context of changing nameservers, which is distinct from other DNS-related siblings. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or mention alternatives among the sibling list.

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