hcloud_update_zone

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say that the label set is *overwritten* (only the nested schema says that), nor what permissions or side effects apply, nor what a 'destructive' zone update actually destroys. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description should at minimum explain the overwrite semantics; it does not.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but a large share of the text is a raw markdown link and a restated title ('Update a Zone / Updates a [Zone]...'). Minimal waste in length, yet the content that is there is low-information.

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 mutation tool flagged destructive with no output schema and only 50% param coverage, the description should explain what mutating a zone affects, that labels are fully replaced, and what the call returns. None of that is present, so an agent cannot predict the effect of the call from the description.

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 only 50%, and the description supplies no parameter information at all — no mention of `id_or_name` (ID vs name), no mention of the `body`/labels payload. The nested object is documented in the schema, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap it leaves.

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?

States the verb and resource ('Update a Zone') and includes a markdown link, but never says what part of a zone is updatable (only `labels`, per the schema). It does at least draw a boundary against the RRSet endpoints, so an agent can rule those out, but the core purpose ('what does updating a zone change?') is left vague.

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?

One explicit when-not is given: to modify record sets, use the RRSet Actions endpoints. However, there is no guidance on when this tool *is* the right choice (e.g. only for re-labelling), and no mention of the many zone-change siblings (hcloud_zone_change_ttl_action, hcloud_zone_change_protection_action) that an agent might otherwise reach for.

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