domains_create_record

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path: it does not say what record types do with existing conflicting records, whether the change is immediately live in DNS, or whether propagation or validation occurs.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: two fragments, one a name restatement and the other a raw endpoint. There is no front-loaded explanation of what the call accomplishes.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent write with a nested required body of DNS-record fields, no output schema, and no parameter documentation. For that complexity, two lines copied from the name and route leave the agent without essential information.

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 reported as 0% and the description says nothing about domainId or the nested body object, which requires type, name, and content plus optional ttl, priority, weight, port, and isEnabled. An agent must read the schema entirely unaided, and the description adds no meaning about defaults or valid combinations.

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 text 'Domains create record' only restates the tool name, and the added line 'POST /domains/{domainId}/records' is the raw HTTP endpoint rather than a description of intent. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like domains_edit_record or domains_create in any meaningful way.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus domains_edit_record (for changes) or domains_get_records_list (for inspection), and no prerequisites such as required permissions or an existing domain. Usage can only be inferred from the verb 'create'.

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