Delete Dns Record

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value on top with the 409 failure mode for Cloady-managed records and the developer-role authorization requirement. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what is returned on success, so it is not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with no padding, and the resource scope is front-loaded before the failure mode and auth note. The phrasing 'Answers 409' is slightly informal but costs no clarity.

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 mutation with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter documentation, the description covers scope, authorization and one error case reasonably well. It still leaves the agent guessing where recordId comes from and what a successful deletion returns, which matters for a destructive call.

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 0% across three required parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It implies that 'domain' and 'workspaceSlug' constrain the target, but 'recordId' is never mentioned or characterized (format, source, whether it comes from listDnsRecords), leaving a required parameter entirely opaque.

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 (deletes a DNS record) plus a precise scope: records on a domain registered through Cloady in this workspace, or under an app's cloady.io address. That scope cleanly separates it from deleteDomain and the createDnsRecord/updateDnsRecord siblings without needing to name them.

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?

It provides one implicit exclusion (records Cloady manages yield 409) and a prerequisite (developer role), which effectively tells the agent when this call will fail. However, it never says when to pick deleteDnsRecord over deleteDomain or when to use updateDnsRecord instead, so guidance remains partial.

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