liara_update_dns_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates), potential side effects (e.g., DNS propagation delays), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of updating a DNS record (a mutation with 7 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool safely and effectively. The schema covers parameters well, but overall completeness is lacking.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters with descriptions and optional/required status. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., 'priority' only matters for certain 'type' values) or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update a DNS record' clearly states the action (update) and resource (DNS record), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated and doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'liara_update_database' which follows a similar pattern. It's not tautological but remains somewhat vague about scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing DNS record), comparison with 'liara_create_dns_record' for new records, or any context about when updates are appropriate versus deletion/recreation. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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