hcloud_post_zone_rrsets

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so mutation safety is already framed. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the primary-mode-only restriction and the specific 422 error code/condition. It omits what happens on conflict (e.g. existing RRSet) and how the `wait` polling behaves, which keeps it off a 5.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the mode constraint immediately after. The remainder is a short error table plus markdown link boilerplate, which is slightly noisy but still minimal for the information conveyed.

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 create operation with a nested body and no output schema, the description covers the mode prerequisite but not the return value (created RRSet and/or action) or the semantics of the default-on `wait` polling flag. Adequate but leaves the agent guessing about post-call results.

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 67% and the nested body schema is thoroughly documented (name, type, records, ttl, labels), so much of the parameter meaning is already structured. The description says nothing about `id_or_name`, `body`, or `wait`, adding no semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate at this coverage level.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an RRSet in the Zone.' That is unambiguous and the mode qualifier narrows it further. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling writers such as hcloud_update_zone_rrset or hcloud_zone_rrset_set_records_action, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Only applicable for Zones in primary mode' is an explicit precondition, reinforced by the 422 incorrect_zone_mode entry in the error table. There is, however, no guidance pointing to alternative tools (e.g. set/update records actions) when the Zone is in secondary mode or when the RRSet already exists.

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