delete_dns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens upon success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter details following directly. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the complexity of a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details such as the effect of deletion (e.g., permanent removal), error handling, or return values, which are necessary for safe and effective tool 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?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'domain_id' is a 'Domain UUID' with an example format and 'record_id' is the 'DNS record ID to delete', clarifying their roles. However, it doesn't detail where to find these IDs or validation rules, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a DNS record for a domain'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_dns' or 'create_dns', which would require mentioning this is specifically for removal rather than modification or creation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'update_dns' and 'create_dns' available, there's no indication of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing record), exclusions, or comparative context, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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