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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantially more: server-side validation of the record_id against the domain's zone before any deletion occurs, rejection of guessed/stale IDs, no undo via this tool, and the real-world impact of a missing SPF/DKIM/MX record. It also discloses response semantics (explicit confirmation of removal, or 'ungeprüft' when the zone can't be read).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the record_id provenance constraint, then layered with recovery and impact warnings. It is dense and somewhat repetitive against the schema's own record_id description, but every sentence carries operational value rather than filler.

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, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, safety consequences, irreversibility, the alternative tool, and how to interpret the response. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema does not: the ID is validated server-side against the zone of exactly this domain, and rejection happens before deletion. It does partially duplicate the schema's warning about guessed/stale IDs, keeping it below 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Löscht EINEN DNS-Eintrag einer Domain') and immediately frames itself as the inverse of add_dns_record with concrete examples (DKIM, SPF, DMARC). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like delete_cronjob or delete_database without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition (record_id must come from get_dns_records), warns that IDs are not stable and must be re-fetched before deleting, and names add_dns_record as the only path to recreate a deleted value. When-not-to-trust-stale-data and the customer-confirmation step are both spelled out.

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