bunny_delete_pull_zone

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral context: the action is irreversible, deletes all configuration, and immediately stops content delivery on all associated hostnames. This meaningfully exceeds what the annotations alone convey.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by scope and consequences. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter delete operation, the description is complete. The parameter is fully described in the schema, the destructive and irreversible nature is clearly stated, and no output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required.

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% — the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Pull Zone ID'. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries the burden, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('CDN pull zone') with the full scope of what is removed (hostnames, edge rules, cache). It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling operations like update_pull_zone or purge_pull_zone_cache.

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 does not provide when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. It explains consequences but never tells the agent when this tool is appropriate versus a non-destructive alternative such as updating or purging the pull zone.

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