create_dns_zone

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context (the wildcard restriction, the internal-vs-public view semantics), but says nothing about idempotency, behavior on a duplicate zone, permissions required, or what is returned.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then two operational caveats. No filler; each clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an 8-parameter creation tool with a nested records array, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the notable FortiOS quirk and the view flag. It leaves gaps around failure modes, duplicate handling, and what a successful call yields, which matters more here because annotations provide no safety profile.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including ttl defaults, vdom, authoritative, and the nested record fields. The description's view=shadow remark largely restates the schema's own 'shadow (internal, default) or public' text, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a local DNS zone'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like list_dns_zones, delete_dns_zone and add_dns_record. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

It hints at selection context by explaining that view=shadow serves internal clients, and warns that wildcard hostnames must be expanded into per-name records. It never says when to create a zone versus adding records to an existing zone, nor what prerequisites (existing VDOM, DNS profile) apply.

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