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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the crucial detail that all records matching type/name/value are removed at once and that the action is irreversible. It also clarifies that TTL is not part of the matching key, which affects what gets destroyed.

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?

Roughly three short sentences: the operation and matching key first, then the irreversibility warning, then the safety recommendation. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries information.

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, five-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers what is deleted, what is not needed (TTL), and how to verify targets beforehand. It stops short of noting failure behavior (e.g. no-op vs error when nothing matches) or auth/ownership requirements.

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 coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds matching semantics the schema does not state: these fields act jointly as a selector, TTL is irrelevant, and prio applies only to MX. That is real value beyond the field-level descriptions.

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 concrete verb (delete) plus resource (DNS records) and defines the exact matching scope: type, name, value, and prio for MX. This distinguishes it from add_dns_record and list_dns_records without the agent needing to open any 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 directs the agent to run list_dns_records first to confirm the exact values, which is a clear prerequisite routing. It does not spell out exclusions (e.g. when deletion should be avoided or which sibling to use instead for bulk cleanup), so it falls just short of a full when/when-not pair.

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