Edit Cloudflare Record

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: partial-update semantics, that the response returns both the new and previous record, and that dry_run is supported. It does not explain what dry_run actually does or what authorization is required, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, return behavior, and dry_run. No filler; each sentence carries information. Slightly terse on dry_run rather than verbose.

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?

With no output schema and 11 parameters including a nested object param, the description does cover return shape ('new record and the previous one'), which is valuable. However it omits what dry_run does, the meaning of the free-form `data` object, and validation constraints, leaving real gaps for a tool of this 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?

Schema coverage is only 45% across 11 params, so the description must compensate. It clarifies partial-update behavior and where record_id comes from, but leaves several parameters (data, comment, content, type, priority) unelaborated in the description while the schema also omits descriptions for them. Baseline 3 for partial compensation.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Update a DNS record in a domain's Cloudflare zone.' An agent can distinguish this from create_cloudflare_record and delete_cloudflare_record by name and verb. It does not explicitly differentiate from the non-Cloudflare sibling update_dns_record, but the scope wording ('Cloudflare zone') largely covers that.

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 prerequisite/context: 'Get `record_id` from get_cloudflare_records.' It states the partial-update contract (omitted fields keep current value), which tells the agent how to invoke it. It lacks any explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing, so it stops short of a 5.

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