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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it warns 'DESTRUCTIVE — irreversible', requires authentication, and explains that deletion is staged until a separate confirmation call. This is exactly the kind of high-stakes behavioral context an agent needs.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the destructive warning, then states requirements, then defines the follow-up action. 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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: required inputs, authentication, the destructive nature, the returned actionId, and the mandatory confirmation step via executeConfirmedAction. Nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description compensates by explicitly naming domain and recordId as required and giving an example for domain and a type for recordId. The sessionKey parameter is already well described in the schema, so the description's omission there is acceptable.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Stage deletion of a DNS record') and immediately clarifies that this is a staging action, not the actual deletion. It is clearly distinguishable from updateDnsRecord and executeConfirmedAction, which are its closest siblings.

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 explicitly states required inputs, the authentication prerequisite, and the exact follow-up flow: present the summary, then call executeConfirmedAction with the returned actionId if approved. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternative approaches, but the workflow context is clear and actionable.

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