hcloud_zone_change_ttl_action

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds meaningful context beyond them — the primary-mode restriction, the specific error code emitted on invalid mode, and the blast radius (affects every RRSet without an explicit TTL). It stops short of stating whether the change is reversible or whether the action is async, which the `wait` parameter hints at but the description never mentions.

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?

Front-loaded title sentence followed by scoping and the error table; every element is relevant. The repeated markdown anchor links add minor noise but do not obscure the content.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, impact scope, and the expected error case. Remaining gaps — permission requirements and confirmation of the async action lifecycle — are modest given the schema documents the `wait` polling flag.

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%, so two of three parameters are documented inline. The description reinforces what `ttl` governs conceptually (zone-wide default for RRSets), adding some meaning over the schema, but says nothing about `id_or_name` resolution or the `wait` polling behavior. Adequate but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Change a Zone's Default TTL') and clarifies the scope by explaining that the TTL applies to RRSets that don't define their own TTL, which implicitly separates it from hcloud_zone_rrset_change_ttl_action. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so differentiation requires a small inference.

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?

Explicitly states 'Only applicable for Zones in primary mode' and documents the 422 incorrect_zone_mode failure, giving clear preconditions for use. It does not route to alternatives (e.g. the per-RRSet TTL tool) or say when to prefer this tool over updating an RRSet directly.

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