dns_set_settings

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates settings and supports partial updates via key/value pairs, but does not mention side effects, permanence, required permissions, return values, or whether changes are immediately applied. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides essential usage guidance. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 8 optional parameters are fully documented in the schema and the description provides a usage prerequisite, the description is adequate. However, for a mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, it would benefit from stating what the success response looks like, whether changes require a service restart, or any side effects on existing settings. These gaps keep it from being complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that only settings to change need to be passed, reinforcing the partial-update behavior. It also suggests using dns_get_settings to discover available keys, which aids parameter understanding beyond the raw 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 'Update DNS server settings', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dns_get_settings and zone-specific tools by focusing on global server settings, and provides concrete examples of what can be changed.

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 to use dns_get_settings first to see current values and available keys, indicating a recommended workflow. It implies this tool is for server-wide settings rather than zone/record-specific changes, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like dns_set_zone_options.

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