update_dns_policy

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that policy is the 'full DNS policy configuration to replace with,' signaling complete replacement semantics rather than a partial update. It does not cover permissions or failure modes, but the replacement behavior is a meaningful and non-obvious disclosure.

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 opens with a one-sentence purpose statement, then provides compact per-parameter guidance. There is no filler or redundant restatement; every line contributes useful information.

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?

The description covers the essential invocation details and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values. However, the nested policy object is the tool's core payload and its expected structure is not described or referenced, leaving a material gap for an agent trying to construct a valid call.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains host's name/ID/composite formats, site name/ID, the role of policy as a full replacement, and where to get policy_id. The inner structure of the policy object is left unspecified, which prevents a higher score.

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 and resource: 'Update a DNS policy by ID.' It clearly sets this apart from sibling tools like create_dns_policy, get_dns_policy, and delete_dns_policy by emphasizing the existence of an ID and a full replacement config.

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 provides helpful context, such as obtaining policy_id from list_dns_policies and treating policy as the full replacement configuration, which implies the target policy already exists. However, it never explicitly says when to use update_dns_policy instead of create_dns_policy, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative approaches.

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