manage_dns_record

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by disclosing the dry_run default (True) for delete ('delete shows record details only. Set False to execute'), which is critical safety information. It also transparently states that action='create' routes to provision_dns and 'explains why', adding behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 longer than minimal but well-structured: purpose, usage guidance, Args, Returns, and Examples. It front-loads the key purpose and usage rules. While it is verbose due to 11 parameters and 5 actions, every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy. A small deduction for length, but not for waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple actions, 11 params, smart lookup, dry-run safety), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers all parameters, gives concrete examples for list/get/update/delete, explains inter-tool routing, and includes the output schema expectation. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail return values. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. The 'Args:' section defines every parameter, including types, defaults, and purpose, plus an example for rdata ('{"address": "10.0.0.1"}'). This fully compensates for the bare input schema and provides more context than a typical schema.

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 and specifically states the tool's function: 'Update, delete, list, or get existing DNS records.' It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming `provision_dns()` for creation and `manage_dns_zone()` for zone management. This leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'USE THIS for record lifecycle after creation' and alternatives are named directly ('For creating new records use provision_dns()', 'For zone management use manage_dns_zone()'). It even explains the fallthrough behavior for action='create' and provides multiple actionable examples.

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