Change primary nameservers

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the entire zone content will be replaced from new primaries and explains the confirmation token flow. It does not describe all side effects in detail but adds meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Description is concise with four sentences, each providing essential information: purpose, side effect, applicability, and workflow. No redundant wording; the structure is logical and front-loaded with the main action.

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 rich schema and destructiveHint annotation, the description is quite complete. It covers scope, transfer impact, secondary mode restriction, and the confirmation token process. It does not detail second-call behavior or error cases, but that is not critical for this 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?

Schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two-step confirmation token behavior and clarifies that primary_nameservers list is exactly what the token is bound to, enriching parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool replaces primary nameservers of a secondary zone, specifying the resource and action. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly limiting to secondary zones and explaining the transfer context.

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 clearly states applicability ('Only applicable to zones in secondary mode') and explains the transfer process, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the secondary zone restriction. This is clear context but slightly lacks explicit exclusions.

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