dns_edit

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

The description provides no behavioral details beyond the idempotentHint annotation. It does not mention side effects, whether it overwrites existing records, error handling, or any required permissions. Since the annotation already covers idempotency, the description adds no additional transparency.

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 concise sentence that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it very efficient.

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 7-parameter edit tool with an output schema, the description is extremely brief. It lacks context about how the edit interacts with record_type, optional fields, or the alternative edit tool. While the schema and output schema cover some ground, the description does not provide enough usage context to fully specify behavior.

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%, with all parameters individually described. The description's 'by ID' clarifies that record_id is the identifier, but this is already evident from the schema. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Edit') and resource ('DNS record'), and specifies the identifier method ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool dns_edit_by_name_type, which edits by name/type instead.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is for editing when you have a record ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like dns_edit_by_name_type or mention any prerequisites. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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