Update DNS policy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that — it never mentions the confirm gate, dry_run behavior, or what gets overwritten when a policy is replaced. The `body` payload, which carries the actual mutation, is entirely unexplained.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and free of padding, so there is nothing wasteful. The problem is compression at the cost of content rather than verbosity — the space saved is not spent on the confirm/dry_run/body information an agent needs.

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 tool with no output schema, an optional dry_run, a required confirm token, and a completely untyped `body` object, the description delivers nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly. A caller cannot learn what fields to supply or how to preview safely.

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 only 50% and the `body` property is declared as an untyped empty object, so the description should name at least some of the updatable policy fields. It says nothing about any of the four parameters. It does avoid contradicting the schema, but adds no meaning.

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 (updates) and the resource (an existing DNS policy), so the agent can distinguish it from create/list/delete/get siblings. However, the sentence is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, adding no scope detail such as which policy fields can be changed.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (create_dns_policy, get_dns_policy, delete_dns_policy) or when to prefer one. It also omits the crucial workflow fact that a mutation requires confirm="YES" and otherwise returns a preview.

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