Create DNS zone

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

Annotations are empty, so the description must carry the safety and behavior burden. It discloses the mutating nature (create) implicitly and notes that the zonefile is ignored for secondary zones, adding useful context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like uniqueness validation, DNS propagation, or that TSIG keys are secrets (though the schema mentions that). This is a moderate gap, hence a 3.

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 three sentences that directly explain the tool's purpose and key usage distinctions. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately follows with critical mode guidance. No extraneous information or repetition of the schema, earning a 5.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 params including nested objects), the description covers the key decision points (mode choice, primary_nameservers requirement, zonefile option). The lack of output schema does not require explanation since it's a creation tool, and the schema provides sufficient detail for parameters. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could optionally mention error cases, but that is not critical.

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 has 100% coverage of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the high-level relationship between mode, primary_nameservers, and zonefile, but it does not go beyond the schema's detailed parameter explanations. The description complements rather than replaces the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 action (create a new DNS zone), the resource (DNS zone), and critically distinguishes between the two modes (primary and secondary) with specific conditions. This differentiates it from sibling tools like update_zone or list_zones, as it focuses on creation and highlights the mode-specific initialization.

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 usage guidance by explaining when to use each mode: 'primary' for zones managed at Hetzner, 'secondary' with primary_nameservers for transfers. It also mentions the optional zone file initialization, giving clear context on when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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