Set KeenDNS mapping

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false; the description goes beyond them by warning that protected names (this server's own and MCP_PROTECTED_PROXY_NAMES) are refused in code and that dry_run is TRUE by default. That preview-by-default behavior is exactly the kind of safety context a destructive tool needs. It does not describe what happens on the actual write (e.g., whether an existing mapping is replaced wholesale).

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the resource and mapping shape come first, followed by the safety caveats. Every clause carries information, though the dry_run default is repeated from the schema and the parenthetical 'ip http proxy' adds density.

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?

No output schema exists, but for a destructive upsert with six fully documented parameters, the description covers effect (published on ndns domain with ssl redirect), safety (dry_run default, protected-name refusal) and idempotency. Missing only auth/permission requirements and post-write return behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description reinforces the name/host/port relationship and notes ssl redirect, but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks. Appropriate at 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 pair (create or update) against a named resource (KeenDNS web-access mapping / 'ip http proxy') and spells out the mapping shape (name -> host:port) plus where it is published. This clearly separates it from get_keendns_mappings and remove_keendns_mapping.

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 upsert semantics ('Create or update') imply that the tool is used whether or not the mapping exists, and the refusal of protected names is useful context. However, it never directs the agent to inspect existing mappings first via get_keendns_mappings or states when-not-to-use, so usage is only implied.

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