dns_update_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'Update' which implies mutation, but doesn't state whether partial updates are allowed, if there are constraints on TTL/priority applicability, or what the response guarantees. The return type is only 'Updated record information' without detail.

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 fairly concise and includes an Args section that is structured and readable. However, it repeats parameter names and types that are already in the schema, adding little new information. The Returns line is minimal. Overall, it's acceptable but not exceptionally efficient.

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 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the context (ctx), what fields are optional, how the update behaves with partial data, or error conditions. The output schema exists but the description doesn't elaborate on the return structure. It meets minimal standards but leaves open questions for an agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameter names and brief descriptions (e.g., 'New record data'), which adds some clarity, but doesn't explain the meaning of 'data' (e.g., IP address for A records) or how 'priority' applies only to MX/SRV. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 it updates an existing DNS record and lists the relevant fields. It is distinct from create/delete/list operations in the sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with dns_validate_record or other similar operations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dns_create_record or dns_delete_record. It doesn't mention that domain and record_id are required to locate the record, nor does it suggest when updating is appropriate.

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