create_cname_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the creation action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing records), permission requirements, or error behavior, similar to a typical minimal mutation tool description.

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 sentence that conveys the entire purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully operationally complete. It lacks information about what happens on success, whether existing records are replaced, or how TTL is handled (though schema covers TTL). The tool is simple, but additional context about side effects would improve completeness.

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?

All four parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond restating the domain context. The phrase 'for a domain' redundantly echoes the 'domain' parameter, and 'alias' partially reflects the 'cname' parameter, but the schema already explains these.

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 'Create' and identifies the resource as a CNAME record, with the clarifier '(canonical name/alias)' making the DNS purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_a_record or create_mx_record by specifying the record type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_a_record or the generic create_dns_record. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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