domains_update_glue_record

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

The annotation idempotentHint=true already signals safe-repeated execution. The description itself adds no behavioral detail beyond the fact that it updates IP addresses. It does not mention that the operation replaces all existing IPs, though this is covered in the schema. There is no contradiction.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. No filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it an example of efficient specification.

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 simple operation, the schema fully documents parameters, and the idempotentHint annotation covers idempotency, the description is largely complete. The only missing element is a note that the IP list replaces all existing addresses, but this is already in the schema. For a compact tool, this is sufficient.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of the three parameters (domain, subdomain, ips) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. This aligns with the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Update a glue record's IP addresses.' It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('glue record's IP addresses'), and the scope is well-defined. The sibling tools include create/delete glue records, so 'update' distinguishes this tool effectively.

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 usage for updating an existing glue record's IP addresses (as opposed to creating or deleting), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any prerequisites. The usage context is clear from the verb 'update' and the sibling names, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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