delete_zone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Delete', which implies destruction, but doesn't state whether the deletion is permanent, cascades to associated entities, requires specific permissions, or how it differs from archiving. The existence of sibling tools like archive_zone and delete_archived_zone suggests important nuances that are not mentioned.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is free of fluff. It is concise and structurally sound, though it trades completeness for brevity. This is appropriately minimal given the single parameter, but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool is destructive, has no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter. The description is too sparse to be complete; it doesn't mention effects on related zones, whether deletion is reversible, or what happens to associated ad items. This is a clear gap for a mutation tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for 'id' as 'Zone ID', so the schema already provides necessary semantics. The description adds no extra parameter context, but the high schema coverage justifies a baseline score of 3.

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 'Delete a standard zone' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (standard zone), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_email_zone or delete_catalog_zone. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or elaborate on what a 'standard zone' encompasses, so it's slightly below the highest tier.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related delete/archive/zone tools. The description doesn't mention exclusions (e.g., archived zones, email zones, VAST zones) or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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