manage_dns_policy

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds context that policies control domain resolution but lacks specifics on side effects (e.g., propagation time, impact on existing policies) or operational details like required permissions. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the main actions and use cases, but for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, it lacks details on return values (e.g., list output format), delete behavior (e.g., cascading effects), and update semantics (partial vs full replacement). It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, but the description adds valuable context beyond the schema: the naming convention for 'name' ('dns-{purpose}') and clarifies that 'filter' is for list only. This helps the agent use parameters correctly.

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 tool's function: 'List, create, update, or delete DNS filtering policies.' It explicitly names the resource (DNS filtering policies) and provides use cases (content filtering, ad blocking, security). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_firewall_policy or manage_acl_rule.

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 suggests when to use (content filtering, ad blocking, security) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. While the use cases are implied, there is no comparative context with sibling tools that might serve similar purposes.

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