delete_dns_record

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the concrete blast radius ('a wrong record can take a site or mail down') and the verification step to mitigate it.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the safety warning follows immediately as justification for the prerequisite.

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 annotations covering destructiveness, a full output schema present, and 100% parameter documentation, the description only needs to add procedural and risk context — which it does. Minor gap: no note on irreversibility or confirmation behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so both `id` and `domain` are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the provenance of `id` (obtained via get_dns_zone) but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a DNS record'), which cleanly separates it from sibling write tools like add_dns_record and update_dns_record. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly gives a prerequisite workflow ('Check the id with get_dns_zone first'), naming the sibling tool to use for verification, plus a concrete reason. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or fallback (e.g., update vs delete), so it falls just short of a 5.

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