dns_pool_eject

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: dry-run mode, confirmation flag, last-member protection, and audit logging. It lacks details on prerequisites or reversibility, but covers the most critical aspects.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that convey all essential information. Every word adds value, and critical points are front-loaded.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description does not mention what the tool returns. It also lacks explanation of the 'record' parameter and fails to describe the outcome of the operation beyond the action itself. For a tool with three parameters, the description is incomplete.

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%, and the description only implicitly references the 'confirm' parameter. The required 'name' parameter and optional 'record' parameter are not explained, leaving agents with insufficient information to set parameters correctly.

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 action: 'Manually pull a node from its DNS pool(s).' It is specific about the resource (DNS pool) and distinguishes from sibling tools like dns_pool_restore and dns_pool_status.

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 description provides basic usage guidance: 'Dry-run unless confirm=true' and 'Refuses to empty a pool (last-member protection).' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like automated ejection or pool status checks.

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