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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: 'DESTRUCTIVE and irreversible once executed', 'Requires authentication', and the two-phase flow via actionId. This is high-value behavioral disclosure beyond the structured annotations and explains the staged-deletion contract.

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 compact and front-loads the destructive warning before the workflow steps. Each sentence adds a distinct, necessary fact: what is staged, the danger, the auth requirement, and the exact follow-up action.

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 two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and relevant annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the action is staged, destructive, requires auth, and the returned actionId feeds into executeConfirmedAction. No output schema is present, but the return value is described in prose.

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%, with both hostname and sessionKey already explained in the input schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific detail, but none is needed because the schema fully covers 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 ('Stage deletion') and resource ('host/glue record'), immediately clarifying what the tool does. It also distinguishes this from the actual execution step by naming executeConfirmedAction as the follow-up, making its role in the deletion flow explicit.

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 clear procedural guidance: returns an actionId, present the summary to the user, then call executeConfirmedAction with the actionId if approved. It does not explicitly contrast this with sibling deletion tools like deleteDnsRecord or deleteMailbox, but the resource scope is clear enough for correct selection.

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