update_dns_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the update is a full replacement or a partial patch, whether changing 'type' may reset or invalidate 'content', whether updates are immediately propagated, or what authorization is required. For a mutation tool, these are significant unaddressed behavioral questions.

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?

The single sentence 'Update an existing DNS record' is front-loaded and contains zero wasted words. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, providing only the barest framing.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. An agent does not learn update semantics (patch vs replace), which fields are optional versus required beyond recordIds, side effects of changing type or proxied, or what the response contains after a successful 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 8 parameters, including special notes like 'Omit to use CLOUDFLARE_ZONE_ID env var.' The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the schema carries the weight, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 ('update') and resource ('DNS record'), and the word 'existing' signals that it operates on previously created records. This implicitly distinguishes it from create_dns_record and delete_dns_record, though it does not explicitly name any sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus create_dns_record, delete_dns_record, or get_dns_record. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or mention of when an update is appropriate versus a delete-and-recreate approach.

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