Update DNS zone labels

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

The description adds behavioral transparency beyond the idempotentHint annotation by stating that the provided set 'replaces all existing labels', which conveys full-replacement semantics. It also clarifies scope by mentioning dedicated tools for other properties, but does not cover additional details like error cases or permissions, which would push it higher.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, and every sentence adds value: purpose, replacement semantics, and alternative tool guidance. No fluff or repetition.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) and the annotation for idempotency, the description fully covers the essential context: what the tool does, its replacement behavior, and where to go for other changes. It is complete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

Although the input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, the description adds crucial meaning to the 'labels' parameter by specifying that it replaces the entire existing set. This is significant contextual information not present in the schema. The zone parameter is already well-described with an example.

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 ('Update the labels of a DNS zone') with a specific verb and resource, and further distinguishes it from other zone property changes by referencing the dedicated change_zone_* tools. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 explains when to use this tool (to replace all labels) and when not to ('Other zone properties are changed via the dedicated change_zone_* tools'). This provides clear usage guidance and alternative tool references, exceeding a simple 'use for labels' statement.

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