hcloud_zone_rrset_add_records_action

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-destructive write against an open world. The description adds materially more: the RRSet is auto-created when missing, records are appended rather than replaced, primary-mode restriction, and the specific 422 failure code. Return shape and wait/polling behavior are not described, keeping it short of 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?

Front-loaded with the operation and effect in the first two sentences, then constraints, then an error table. The pervasive inline anchor links add visual noise but the information density is high and nothing is redundant.

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 with nested body, 4 required params and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral surprises (auto-create, append, zone mode) an agent needs to call it safely. Only the async 'wait' semantics and the returned action object are left unexplained, which the schema partially covers.

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 80% and the schema already documents rr_name normalization, TTL rules, record value sources, and the 50-item/distinct-value constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Adds resource records (RRs) to an RRSet in the Zone') and clarifies the append semantics plus auto-creation. It implies the distinction from set/update siblings via 'appended to the existing RRSet' but never names them, so an agent must infer the contrast.

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 a real exclusion ('Only applicable for Zones in primary mode') and documents the 422 incorrect_zone_mode error, which is useful when-not guidance. However, it never names the alternative operations (set_records / update_records / remove_records) or the conditions that select them, leaving sibling choice to inference.

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