ecp_dns_delete_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the operation is destructive and adds a key nuance: the record match is fuzzy — 'closely enough for the DNS provider to identify it — which is not inferable from the schema alone. It could also mention permanence or confirmation expectations, but the core behavioral trait is conveyed.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The action is stated first, and the crucial matching constraint is added in the second sentence without redundancy. Every word 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 destructive DNS delete with a nested record object and required confirmation, the description covers the central matching behavior that could trip up an agent. There is no output schema and no explicit return-value information, but the action is simple enough that the missing details are unlikely to block correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter understanding. It adds meaningful guidance by highlighting that name, type, and content are the matching fields on the record object. However, it does not explain the domain parameter or the confirm flag beyond what their names imply, leaving some semantic burden on the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: "Delete a DNS record from a domain's zone. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like ecp_dns_list_records and ecp_dns_add_record because the action and target are explicit. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 gives a useful prerequisite: the record must match an already-existing record closely enough for the provider to identify it. However, it never explicitly directs the agent to ecp_dns_list_records to fetch that record, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Usage context is implied by the tool name rather than explicitly routed.

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