dns_create_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. It reveals that the operation creates a record and returns created record information, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., duplicate record behavior, overwriting), required permissions, or failure conditions. It also does not mention that the domain must already exist or that certain record types have specific constraints (e.g., MX requires priority). The mention of 'ctx' for resource change notifications hints at side effects but does not clarify them.

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 highly concise and well-structured. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, then lists each argument with a clear explanation, and concludes with a return-value note. No superfluous text; every line adds information. The layout is easy to scan and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 all parameters and states what is returned, which is sufficient for the common case. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., domain must exist) and edge-case handling (e.g., duplicate record rejection, MX priority requirement), but these are partially inferable from the schema (required fields) and the output schema provides return details. For a create operation, the description is adequate for correct invocation in most scenarios.

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?

The description provides detailed meaning for every parameter, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It lists valid record types for record_type, explains that priority applies to MX/SRV, gives the default TTL, and describes the data field. It also clarifies the role of the context parameter. This is essential for the agent to construct correct arguments and is well beyond the bare type information 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?

The description clearly states 'Create a new DNS record' with a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates the supported record types (A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT, NS, SRV) in the args list, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_update_record or dns_delete_record. The purpose is unambiguous and front-loaded.

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 implies usage via the imperative 'Create', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. No mention is made of conditions like 'use when adding a new record', nor does it reference sibling tools such as dns_update_record or dns_validate_record. Guidance is implied from the tool name and verb rather than explicit.

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