create_dns_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the core mutation ('Create a new DNS record') and the zone_id resolution step. It does not mention permissions, idempotency, duplicate handling, required zone context, side effects, or what happens after creation. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the practical prerequisite guidance is delivered immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It covers the primary action and the most important prerequisite, but it does not clarify expected behavior, constraints, or return values. The schema fills parameter details, but the description alone leaves an agent without enough behavioral context for a create operation.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining how to obtain a zone_id via list_zones, which clarifies the relationship between the zone_id parameter and the user's domain-name intent. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new DNS record.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (list_dns_records, update_dns_record, delete_dns_record, etc.). The action and object are unambiguous.

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?

The description gives concrete usage context by instructing the agent to 'Call list_zones first to resolve a domain name to a zone_id if needed.' This is clear procedural guidance for a common prerequisite, though it does not explicitly mention when create should be avoided or when an alternative like update_dns_record would be more appropriate.

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