dns_record_delete

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a DNS record' names the mutation but does not state that deletion is irreversible, whether dependent records or zone integrity are affected, what happens if record_id does not exist, or any permission/precondition requirements. The description adds essentially nothing beyond what the tool name already conveys.

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 four words, front-loaded with the verb, and contains zero filler. It is appropriately brief for a simple operation, though it could have added usage and behavioral context in one or two extra sentences without becoming bloated.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values, irreversibility, and preconditions, but it does none of this. The two parameters are well covered by the schema, yet the destructive operation itself is under-described, leaving the agent to guess what a successful delete returns or how to confirm the record was removed (e.g., via dns_record_get).

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%: 'type' documents the allowed enum of record types and 'record_id' is described as 'Record ID', so the baseline is 3. The description text adds no further parameter meaning, such as how to obtain a valid record_id or whether the zone is implied by the record. The schema does the heavy lifting, and the description neither helps nor hurts.

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 (Delete) and resource (a DNS record), clearly marking this as the destructive counterpart to dns_record_add, dns_record_update, and dns_record_get. It also distinguishes from dns_zone_delete by targeting records rather than zones. It is clear, though minimal, with no elaboration on scope or effect.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus dns_record_update (e.g., removing a record entirely vs editing it) or how it relates to dns_zone_delete. Prerequisites are absent — nothing states the record and its zone must already exist, or that deletion affects live DNS resolution. With roughly 70 siblings, the agent receives no routing help.

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