Update DNS Record

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

The only annotation is openWorldHint, which does not cover safety or side effects, so the description carries the burden. It merely says 'update' without disclosing how existing resource records are modified, whether changes are additive/replacement, or any permission/precondition requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 definition is a single terse sentence with no filler and the action verb is front-loaded. It is concise, but so minimal that it sacrifices useful context, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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 six parameters, a mutation operation, no output schema, and only a sparse annotation, the description should explain how the update is applied, such as whether new_resource_records replaces values and removed_resource_records deletes them. It currently leaves the agent to infer the tool's behavior from parameter names and siblings. This is a meaningful completeness gap.

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%, so the schema documents all six parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, especially the relationship between new_resource_records and removed_resource_records, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 names a specific action (update) and resource (existing DNS record within a domain), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling create/delete tools at a basic level. It doesn't spell out the update semantics or alternatives, but the purpose is 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?

The word 'existing' communicates that this tool is for modifying already-created DNS records, not for adding or removing records. It does not explicitly name create/delete alternatives or state conditions like needing the domain ID and record identifiers, but the usage context is fairly clear.

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