manage_dnssec

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the list of operations and parameter scoping, but it does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., unsign removes DNSSEC signatures, delete_key is irreversible) or the exact return format beyond 'DNSSEC operation result'. This is adequate but not rich.

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 well-organized with a concise summary, explicit alternatives, an Args list, Returns line, and representative examples. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is compact yet comprehensive.

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?

With 5 parameters, 6 actions, and an output schema present, the description covers the key aspects: it lists all operations, documents each parameter, provides usage examples, and clarifies tool boundaries. The lack of detailed keyset structure or per-action side effects is a minor gap, but overall it is nearly complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so with an Args section that explains each parameter and maps zone_id vs zone_ids to specific actions. Examples further clarify usage, though the keyset dict is only shown as {'keys': [...]}, leaving some structure implicit. Overall, it adds substantial value beyond the bare 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Manage DNSSEC key lifecycle for authoritative zones' and enumerates the specific operations (sign, unsign, status, export trust anchors, delete keys, import keysets). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly mentioning manage_dns_zone and manage_rpz_policies. This is a specific verb+resource+scope formulation.

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 says when to use alternative tools: 'For zone management use manage_dns_zone(). For RPZ rules use manage_rpz_policies().' This provides clear when-not guidance. Additionally, the Args and Examples sections illustrate how to use each action, reinforcing when to use the tool.

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