dns_pool_restore

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 the dry-run behavior (default false), the confirm flag for execution, and that the action is audited. This is sufficient for a simple operational tool, though more detail on permissions or side effects could improve it.

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: two sentences with no wasted words. The key action and critical behavior (dry-run/confirm) are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 tool has 3 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention return values or prerequisites (e.g., node must be ejected). It covers the core behavior but lacks completeness for an agent to use it without additional context.

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?

The schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the confirm parameter's role (dry-run vs. execute), but does not clarify 'name' or 'record'. These parameters remain ambiguous, leaving the agent guessing their purpose.

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 'add a node back to its DNS pool(s)', which specifies the verb (add) and resource (DNS pool). It distinguishes from sibling tools like dns_pool_eject (removal) and dns_pool_status (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 implies usage for restoration after ejection or failure, and explains the dry-run behavior with confirm flag. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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