domains_edit_record

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known from structured data. The description only adds the implicit PATCH semantics (partial update of the referenced record), and says nothing about what state is mutated, whether the zone version is bumped, or what happens to omitted fields. That is a thin contribution for a destructive mutation.

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 and front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy: the first line duplicates the name and the second is a route string. No sentence here actually explains the tool.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested ten-field body and no output schema, the description provides nothing about effects, partial-update behavior, error conditions, or return shape. It is far from complete enough to call this tool confidently.

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 0% at the top level and the description says nothing about domainId, recordId, or the nested body object with its ten sub-fields. The agent gets zero added meaning from the description about which record fields are editable or the expected formats, despite the nested body being the core of the call.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name ("Domains edit record") plus the raw endpoint "PATCH /domains/{domainId}/records/{recordId}". It never says what editing a record means or what fields can change, and it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from siblings such as domains_create_record or domains_get_record. Only the HTTP verb and path template carry any information beyond the name.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent learning that this is a partial-update endpoint must infer everything else from the path template and annotations alone.

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