add_dns_regexp

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

Annotations only indicate openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, not read-only. The description discloses it is an add operation but provides no details on side effects, permissions, or behavior beyond the basic action. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, but it is also minimal to the point of under-specification, which slightly lowers the score.

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 and zero schema descriptions, the one-line description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what a DNS regexp entry is, how parameters interrelate, or any operational context, leaving the agent without essential information 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the six parameters (ttl, device, regexp, address, comment, disabled). There is no compensation for the lack of schema descriptions, so parameter semantics are completely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Adds') and identifies the resource ('DNS regexp entry'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like add_dns_static. However, it lacks any additional scope or contrast that would elevate it to a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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