csm_dnsf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It mentions that it is a write and requires confirmation, but does not explain the confirmation flow, what the write changes, whether it is destructive or reversible, or what the response contains. This is minimal disclosure 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 description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. It front-loads the key facts (write, requires confirmation) but leaves critical details unaddressed, so the brevity is not helpful.

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 (write operation, 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain the confirmation mechanism, parameter meanings, expected outcomes, or error conditions. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (param, user_code, confirm_token, confirmation_id). The agent gets no guidance on what values to supply, so it must rely entirely on the bare schema, which lacks descriptions. The description adds no semantic value.

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 identifies the resource (DNS filter settings) and the action (write) clearly, and notes the requirement for confirmation. It distinguishes itself from the many read-only show_* siblings by indicating a write operation, though it doesn't detail exactly what the write does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or any contrast with sibling tools that might also modify DNS or filter settings.

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