add_dns_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 does disclose one real behavioral constraint beyond the schema ('Wildcard (*) hostnames are rejected by FortiOS'), which is useful. However, for a mutation tool it omits permissions, whether the zone must pre-exist, reversibility, and error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the constraint. Every sentence 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?

For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 50% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum clarify prerequisites, parameter semantics, and expected effects of the write.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters (ip, ttl, ipv6, hostname) — and it does not. It adds no parameter meaning at all, leaving half the parameters with no explanation in either the schema or the description.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Add a record to a local DNS zone.' This is clear and distinct from sibling DNS tools like create_dns_zone, delete_dns_record, or list_dns_zones. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the zone must already exist via create_dns_zone), and no mention of related operations like delete_dns_record. The only constraint given is a data-validation rule, not usage context.

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