pve_node_dns_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it reads current DNS config, dry-returns a PLAN, and on confirm executes a PUT with smoke-confirm, returning status. It also notes the failure mode. Minor gap: doesn't specify idempotency or plan structure, but overall strong.

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 extremely concise, using structured keywords like MUTATION, RISK_MEDIUM, CAPTURE. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complexity (mutation tool with dry-run pattern) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers key behaviors: read-before-write, dry-run, execution, risk. It could mention what happens on no-change or the exact plan format, but it is sufficient for most use cases.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's role in dry-run vs execution and mentions that node defaults to the configured node. This provides context beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 it updates DNS resolver configuration on a PVE node. It uses the verb 'update' and specifies the resource (DNS resolver config) and scope (PVE node). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_node_dns (which reads DNS) by labeling itself as a MUTATION.

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 explains the dry-run pattern (default returns a PLAN, confirm=True executes) and the risk level (RISK_MEDIUM) with a comparison to node hosts_set. While it doesn't explicitly list when to use vs alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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