contabo_dns

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

Annotations are coarse (a single destructiveHint=true across 14 heterogeneous operations), and the description genuinely refines them by tagging the three delete/bulk-delete operations as DESTRUCTIVE per operation. It also discloses a behavioral constraint the annotations cannot express: writes are rejected unless the server is started with CONTABO_ENABLE_WRITES=1. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination defaults.

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 overall purpose, the read-only gate, and the operation count rule are front-loaded ahead of the enumeration, which is the right ordering. The operation list is long but each line is load-bearing for a discriminated mega-tool, though some entries are near-redundant ('...by ip address' repeated across PTR operations).

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 14-operation multiplexed tool with no output schema, the description covers operation discovery, destructive flagging, and the write gate, and it explicitly delegates full parameter documentation to contabo_reference. What is missing is any hint about return shape or pagination semantics for the list operations, which the absent output schema would otherwise force the description to carry.

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%, and the schema itself carries per-operation property descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the meta-claim that parameters are validated per operation and defers detail to contabo_reference; it contributes no field-level meaning beyond 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 opens with the resource domain (DNS zones, records, PTR records) and then enumerates all 14 operations with specific verb+resource phrasing, so an agent can map an intent like 'delete a PTR record' to an operation name without opening the schema. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as contabo_domains and contabo_reference.

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 states the selection rule explicitly ('Choose exactly one operation; every operation has its own parameter set') and routes parameter questions to contabo_reference. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over the neighbouring contabo_domains tool, so the guidance covers operation choice but not tool choice.

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