Add Records to DNS Zone RRSet

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: it confirms existing records are preserved and that TTL updates are optional. This is meaningful but not exhaustive, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core additive behavior is stated first, and the optional TTL behavior follows succinctly. Every phrase contributes to understanding the operation.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and a fully covered input schema, the description gives the essential behavioral context: append-only semantics and optional TTL adjustment. It stops short of discussing edge cases or failure modes, but the operation is simple enough that this is not a critical gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, though it does reinforce that 'records' are additions and that 'ttl' is an optional update. No substantial extra semantic value is contributed.

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 ('Add'), names the resource ('existing RRSet'), and explicitly states the non-destructive scope ('without removing existing ones'). This clearly distinguishes it from related record-set tools like hetzner_set_zone_rrset_records or hetzner_update_zone_rrset_records.

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 clear context: use this when adding records to an existing RRSet while preserving current records, and optionally updating the TTL. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the additive wording gives enough practical guidance.

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