Update DNS zone labels

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that the given set replaces all existing labels, which is crucial for an update operation. The annotation idempotentHint=true is present, and the description doesn't contradict it. It adds value by clarifying the replacement semantics, which is beyond what the annotation provides. However, it doesn't mention any other behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, but given the annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It is concise and well-structured, with no wasted words.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, idempotent annotation), the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, the replacement behavior, and the distinction from other zone property tools. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the return value, but since there's no output schema, that's not required. Overall, it's well-rounded for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (zone and labels) having descriptions. The description adds the key semantic that the labels set replaces all existing labels, which is not fully captured in the schema. However, the schema already provides adequate parameter descriptions, so the description adds marginal value 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 tool updates DNS zone labels, specifies that the given set replaces all existing labels, and distinguishes it from other zone property changes via dedicated change_zone_* tools. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope and 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?

The description explicitly notes that the given set replaces all existing labels, which is a critical usage guideline. It also mentions that other zone properties are changed via dedicated change_zone_* tools, providing clear context for when not to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives beyond the label replacement context.

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