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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the exact DNS propagation behavior: primary server removal is immediate, secondary servers follow via replication and may keep answering if disconnected, and resolvers retain cached answers up to 60 seconds. This is valuable operational context that annotation hints alone do not convey.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes useful information about timing, prerequisites, or propagation behavior. There is no wasted wording or irrelevant detail.

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 destructive operation with an existing output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, timing, prerequisites, and observable side effects. An agent has enough information to decide when to call the tool and what to expect afterward, so no critical context is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already thoroughly documents both 'slug' and 'dns_token', so the description need not restate them. The description adds a small reminder that dns_token is required, but it does not materially enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Remove a temporary DNS name now, before its 24 hours are up') and differentiates this from sibling tools by emphasizing immediate removal versus waiting for expiration. It is specific about the resource type and avoids simply restating the tool name.

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 a clear when-to-use instruction ('Use it when the work is done and the name should stop answering') and mentions the required dns_token prerequisite. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for scenarios where the name still needs to answer, but the guidance is sufficiently clear for the common delete use case.

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