manage_dtc

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds essential context: 'Delete runs in dry_run mode by default' and explains that LBDN is the primary resource with pools/servers/policies as supporting configuration. This goes beyond annotations, though it stops short of detailing dependency effects or auth requirements.

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-structured: clear purpose, usage guidance, a prominent dry-run warning, parameter list, returns, and examples. Every section earns its place, is front-loaded, and avoids fluff.

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 (4 resource types, 5 actions, 8 params) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers core aspects well with examples for list and LBDN create. However, it lacks a matrix of valid resource_type/action combinations and deeper dependency semantics (e.g., whether pools must be linked to an LBDN), which an agent might need for correct invocation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage signal, the Args section adds meaning: 'name: Resource name (for create/update)', 'resource_id: Resource ID for get/update/delete', and 'view: DNS view ID (for LBDN create)' clarify parameter roles and conditional usage. It compensates reasonably, though some descriptions remain generic ('Type of DTC resource to manage').

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 opens with 'Manage DNS Traffic Control (DTC/GSLB): LBDNs, pools, servers, and policies,' which clearly states the verb and resource scope. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by directing users to manage_dns_zone() and manage_dns_record() for other DNS tasks, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says 'USE THIS for global server load balancing and traffic steering' and provides clear alternatives: 'For DNS zones use manage_dns_zone(). For DNS records use manage_dns_record().' It also flags the dry-run default for delete, guiding safe usage.

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