Create Cloudflare Record

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the safety baseline is covered. The description adds useful behavior the annotations cannot: dry_run support and the per-type constraints (MX needs priority, proxied only for A/AAAA/CNAME, structured types need data). It does not discuss auth requirements or duplicate-record behavior.

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 critical migration caveat is front-loaded as IMPORTANT before the per-parameter rules, which is the right ordering. Density is high and appropriate for 10 parameters, though the back-to-back constraint clauses read as a run-on list rather than cleanly grouped guidance.

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?

For a 10-parameter mutation with a nested data object and no output schema, the description covers type-conditional rules, defaults, and dry_run well. It omits any statement about what the call returns or how to verify the record landed, which is the remaining gap.

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 high (90%), so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully supplements it: "@" for apex, ttl 1 = automatic, priority required for MX only, proxied applicability, and the content-vs-data split for structured record types. This is more than restating 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a DNS record in a domain's Cloudflare zone") and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_dns_record by naming which zone actually resolves. An agent can select between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use rule against the closest alternative ("for a domain that has been moved to Cloudflare this is the tool that changes what actually resolves"), including the consequence of picking the wrong one. It stops short of naming when-not to use it (e.g. for existing records where edit/delete apply), so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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