Create RRSet

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

It discloses the key failure condition (duplicate name/type) and implies a write operation. However, it does not mention other potential side effects (e.g., zone update, permissions), though for a simple create this is acceptable.

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 description is concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundant information. It effectively conveys purpose and usage without fluff.

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?

The description covers the main behavior and failure condition, and does not need to explain return values since no output schema is provided. It could mention that the zone must exist, but that is implied by 'in a zone'.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (coverage 83%). The tool description adds an example that clarifies 'name' and 'type' but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and resource 'RRSet', provides context 'in a zone', and includes an example ('A record for www'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting when to use set_records or add_records instead.

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 provides explicit guidance on when not to use this tool: 'Fails if an RRSet with the same name and type already exists — use set_records or add_records in that case.' This clearly delineates appropriate usage versus alternatives.

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