dns_validate_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. It discloses that validation results with errors/warnings are returned, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only (it likely is) or what exactly is validated (syntax vs. existing records). This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact and well-structured. The main purpose is stated first, followed by a clear argument list and return value. There is no fluff or redundancy. Every element earns its place.

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 output schema exists (though not detailed here) and the parameters are explained, the description covers the essentials for calling the tool. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., does the domain need to exist?) or the exact validation scope, but these are not critical for basic invocation. Overall, it is complete enough.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: record_type with allowed values, name, data, ttl in seconds, and priority restricted to MX/SRV. This meaningfully adds beyond the schema. However, it could provide more detail on data format or constraints, but it's adequate.

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 the verb 'validate' and the resource 'DNS record', with an explicit purpose 'before creation'. It distinguishes from siblings like dns_create_record (which creates) and dns_analyze_domain (which analyzes the domain). This is unambiguous and specific.

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 phrase 'before creation' gives clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., if you need to validate an entire domain). This is a minor gap but not misleading.

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