Import DNS Records

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it explains that existing records land in `skipped` rather than `failed`, that partial failures are isolated in `failures`, that NS/SOA are deliberately ignored, that records are inert until nameservers point at Porkbun, that `warnings` reports delegation, and that the cap is 500 records. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and every sentence carries operational information (idempotency, failure isolation, nameserver caveat, limit). It is dense but slightly long, with the 500-record limit and NS/SOA note arriving after several other clauses.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining returns and it does so: `skipped`, `failures`, and `warnings` are all defined. Combined with the nameserver prerequisite and the batch limit, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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, and the schema already documents the omit-to-scan behavior of `records`. The description nonetheless adds decision value by stating when the explicit-list path is preferred (reading the zone from the old registrar's API), which is not in 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 many DNS records on a Porkbun domain in one call') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the batch nature and its companion scan_dns_records. An agent can separate it from create_dns_record (single) and list_dns_records (read) without opening any 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 explicit branch conditions: pass `records` for an exact list (preferred when reading the zone from the old registrar's API), or omit it to import a live scan. It also spells out the follow-up workflow (check get_nameservers, then update_nameservers when cutting over), so when-to-use and sequencing are unambiguous.

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