hcloud_zone_import_zonefile_action

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

Annotations flag destructive/openWorld, and the description earns credibility beyond them by disclosing the blast radius ('replacing all resource record sets'), a hard precondition (change-protected RRSets cause failure) and a mode restriction. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before a destructive write.

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 and short, with the destructive scope stated first and conditions after. Minor waste: 'Import a Zone file' is immediately restated as 'Imports a zone file', and the markdown anchor links add noise without 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?

No output schema, but the description covers preconditions, failure modes and the mutation scope, which is what matters for a destructive action. The defaulted wait/polling behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is a small gap for an async action tool.

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 the schema already documents id_or_name, body.zonefile and the wait polling flag. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, no notes on how much of the zonefile is authoritative or how wait interacts with the async action. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Import a Zone file') and immediately scopes it with 'replacing all resource record sets', which distinguishes it from the RRSet-level mutation siblings such as hcloud_zone_rrset_set_records_action and hcloud_zone_rrset_add_records_action. The replacement-of-all semantics is the key differentiator and it is front and center.

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?

Gives two concrete preconditions: the Zone must be in primary mode, and it will fail if existing RRSets are change-protected. It also documents the 422 incorrect_zone_mode error, which effectively tells the agent when not to call it. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for non-primary zones, so it is clear context without full routing.

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