Validate DNS records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is non-mutating. The description adds specific behavior: it explains success (200) and error (422) response codes and confirms the purpose is verification only. This aligns with annotations and provides useful operational detail.

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 three sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the purpose. It wastes no words and includes exactly the needed behavioral cues (success/failure codes) and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 validation-only tool with no output schema, the description explains the return codes and clearly indicates it is for pre-update verification. It does not mention authentication or prerequisites, but these are likely implicit. The essential context is covered without missing critical information.

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 100%, so each parameter (domain, zone, overwrite) is already well documented. The description doesn't add param-specific meaning beyond stating the tool validates records, which is implied. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already handles semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Validate'), a resource (DNS records), and the context ('prior to update'). It explicitly says 'Use this endpoint to verify DNS record validity before applying changes,' which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like DNS_updateDNSRecordsV1 or DNS_getDNSRecordsV1.

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 clearly says when to use the tool: 'prior to update' and 'before applying changes.' It implies this is a pre-application step, but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is sufficient for an agent to understand the intended workflow.

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