impreza_update_dns_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the update is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing values), idempotent, or has side effects. It also omits details like case sensitivity, validation rules, or error behaviors on missing 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no redundant words. Every part is necessary and well-structured.

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?

While the description explains the update mechanism, it lacks several key details: no mention of output (return value or success/failure indication), no disclosure about partial updates (e.g., can you update only value while keeping TTL?), and no links to prerequisites or domain management context. Given the tool has 7 parameters (5 required) and no annotations, a more complete description would include behavioral consequences and result format.

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?

Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the identification logic (locate by type+host+old_value) and the role of new_value, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on optional parameters like ttl or priority beyond their schema descriptions.

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 ('Update'), the specific resource ('DNS record on an Impreza-managed domain'), and the identification method (by `type` + `host` + `old_value`). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `impreza_add_dns_record` and `impreza_delete_dns_record`, which serve 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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to add vs. update vs. delete a record. It only states the operation's mechanics, leaving the AI agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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