update_dns_record

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 only states the basic operation without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites all fields, validation rules, or if it returns any confirmation. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a concise main sentence followed by an Args list. It is efficient, though the list could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter descriptions.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention return values or side effects. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, it fails to provide enough context about what happens after update (e.g., confirmation, updated record).

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 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by listing each parameter with a brief explanation (e.g., 'The UUID of the DNS record to update', 'New record type'). However, the explanations are generic and lack constraints, allowed values, or formatting details.

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 'Update an existing DNS record.' The verb 'update' and resource 'DNS record' are specific, and with sibling tools like create_dns_record and delete_dns_record, it is well-distinguished.

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 updating an existing record, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks prerequisites, context, or alternatives, relying on implied differentiation from sibling tools.

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