Sửa bản ghi DNS

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the supplied type/name/data fully overwrite the existing record, whether omitted optional fields (ttl, priority) are cleared or preserved, or that changes propagate to live DNS.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than true economy.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with 5 required fields, no output schema and no annotation-level detail about mutation semantics, the description is too thin. An agent is not told that type/name/data are mandatory and likely replace prior values, nor how TTL/priority defaults behave on update.

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 71%, with the schema itself documenting ttl, data, name, type and priority ranges/formats. The description contributes one genuinely new fact the schema lacks: that record_id must be obtained from cloud_domain_dns_list. It says nothing about the five required parameters or how they interact with the existing record.

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?

The description gives a clear verb+resource ("Sửa 1 bản ghi DNS" = update a DNS record) and even names the source of the identifier (record_id from cloud_domain_dns_list). It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling mutation tools cloud_domain_dns_add and cloud_domain_dns_delete, so an agent must infer that this is the modify-in-place variant.

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?

Naming cloud_domain_dns_list as the origin of record_id implies a useful prerequisite (list before you edit), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement that this replaces an existing record rather than adding one, and no exclusion pointing to dns_add/dns_delete for those cases.

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