dns_record_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action without explaining side effects, idempotency, error handling, or what happens if the record does not exist. For a mutation tool, this is a critical gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that uses concise language. It conveys the core action without any filler, earning its place as a well-structured minimal description.

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 is minimal and lacks essential context for a mutation tool with no output schema. It does not explain return values, how the update is performed (e.g., by matching currentValue), or any behavioral nuances. The rich schema covers parameter semantics, but overall tool behavior remains under-specified.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already provides detailed semantics for each field, including examples and enum values.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing DNS record', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_record_add, dns_record_remove, and dns_record_list. The scope is explicit (existing record), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dns_record_add or dns_record_remove. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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