add dns record

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds little beyond that: it mentions a 'verified command' but does not disclose side effects like DNS propagation, service restarts, duplicate record behavior, or whether existing records are checked. With no idempotency and openWorldHint set, more behavioral context would be valuable.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence about the command adds an implementation detail but is not bloated. It earns its place as a compact summary, though it sacrifices semantic richness.

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 nine parameters, five required, and zero schema descriptions, this description is far too thin. It does not explain required parameters, record-type-specific value formats, TTL/priority semantics, or the prerequisite that the user and zone must exist. The output schema covers return values, but input guidance is almost entirely absent.

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%, so the description must compensate for the nine parameters, but it does not explain record, type, value, ttl, priority, restart, or user/domain prerequisites. An agent gets no guidance on what values are expected for different record types or how optional parameters affect behavior.

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 ('Add a record') and the target resource ('an existing DNS zone'). The qualifier 'existing' distinguishes it from add_dns_domain, which creates a zone, and from delete_dns_record, so an agent can select the right sibling without opening schemas.

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 phrase 'existing DNS zone' implies the tool is only for adding records to zones that already exist, which is a useful condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like add_dns_domain for creating zones or delete_dns_record for removing records, so the when-not guidance is mostly implicit.

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