update_dns_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial-update behavior and that unspecified fields remain unchanged, which is useful. However, it does not mention what happens if the record does not exist, whether the operation is idempotent, or any error conditions, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the action and key behavior. No filler or redundancy; it earns its place and is appropriately sized for the tool.

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 has 9 parameters and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose and partial-update semantics, but does not address prerequisites (e.g., record must exist), potential error scenarios, or any additional context. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but for a mutation tool with this complexity, the description could provide more guidance.

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 adds the critical insight that all non-required parameters are optional fields for partial update ('Only the fields you pass are changed'), which clarifies the semantics of the many nullable parameters. However, it does not explain individual parameters, relying on self-evident titles like 'Ttl' and 'Content'. This provides marginal value over the schema but does not fully compensate for zero coverage.

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 states a clear verb ('update') and resource ('DNS record'), and highlights a key differentiator: 'Only the fields you pass are changed' — distinguishing it from full-replace or create operations. It clearly identifies the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'Partially update an existing DNS record' implies usage when the record already exists and only specific fields need modification, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like create_dns_record or mention when to prefer get_dns_record before updating, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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