Import zone file

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that records are replaced and explains the two-step token flow, including binding the token to the exact zone file and the need to ask the user. This provides substantial context beyond the annotation.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, immediately warns about replacement, and then explains the confirmation flow. Every sentence 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 tool's complexity (destructive, two-step, backup consideration), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, destructive effect, confirmation procedure, and backup recommendation. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently prepares the agent for invocation and sequencing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for confirmToken by emphasizing it is bound to exactly this zone file and clarifying the first-call behavior. It also notes the BIND format, which is not fully captured in 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 tool imports a zone file (BIND format) into an existing primary zone and explicitly notes it REPLACES current records. This distinguishes it from siblings like export_zonefile and set_records, providing a specific verb and resource.

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?

It recommends considering export_zonefile first as a backup, which is an explicit alternative action. It also clearly explains the two-call confirmation workflow. However, it does not explicitly exclude other alternatives like set_records for incremental changes, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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