dhcp_dns1

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the whole burden. It does disclose that this is a 'write' operation that 'requires confirmation', which is an important behavioral trait. However, it does not explain the confirmation workflow or what happens if confirmation is not provided, and it gives no information about side effects or failure modes.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately short for a simple config tool, though the terseness prevents it from covering crucial workflow details.

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 that the tool is a mutating operation with a confirmation flow and five parameters, the description is too sparse. It omits how the confirmation parameters interact, what the agent should expect after invoking it, and any return contract. There is no output schema, so the description needs to cover more of the call contract.

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 only alludes to 'primary DNS' and 'confirmation'. The five parameters (lan, dns, user_code, confirm_token, confirmation_id) are not explained beyond the schema's basic types/ranges. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented confirmation parameters, leaving an agent to guess their roles.

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 ('Set') and resource ('DHCP primary DNS'), and the word 'primary' distinguishes it from the dhcp_dns2 sibling. The parenthetical 'write — requires confirmation' also signals the action type, making the purpose 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 description implies use for setting the primary DHCP DNS and mentions a confirmation requirement, but it does not explicitly compare with dhcp_dns2 or state when to choose one over the other. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are given, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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