Create DNS Zone

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

Description accurately states the action without contradicting annotations. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so creating is expected, but no further behavioral details like idempotency or side effects are provided. With minimal annotations, the description could offer more but is adequate.

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?

A single sentence with only necessary words. Very concise and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is very brief. It does not explain the mutual exclusivity of rrsets and zonefile, the response structure, or any post-creation behavior. This is insufficient for such a complex tool.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds a note about primary nameservers being required for secondary zones, which is not in the schema, but overall adds little new meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Create', the resource 'DNS zone', and the modes 'primary or secondary'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'hetzner_create_zone_rrset' and 'hetzner_import_zonefile' by specifying the scope and optional parameters.

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?

Description mentions optional parameters and the conditional requirement for primary nameservers for secondary zones, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like import_zonefile or when to use each mode. Still, it provides clear context for usage.

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