delete_record

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 'Deletes' implies a destructive mutation, the description fails to address critical behavioral aspects such as whether the deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects on the website, or what happens if the record doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, direct sentence that efficiently states the tool's action and key parameter without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Deletes a DNS record'), making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes (e.g., prerequisites) into a second sentence for better clarity.

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 tool's destructive nature (implied by 'Deletes'), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral risks (e.g., irreversibility), error conditions, or response format, which are critical for safe and effective use. The context signals indicate a simple parameter structure, but the description fails to address the higher-stakes aspects of a deletion operation.

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%, with the parameter 'recordId' fully documented in the schema (including its type, description, and examples). The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 verb ('Deletes') and resource ('a DNS record of a website'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools like 'delete_certificate' or 'er_record_delete', which would require mentioning the specific resource type (DNS record vs. certificate vs. ER record) to achieve full differentiation.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning that the RecordId 'can be obtained by calling ListRecords', which hints at a prerequisite but doesn't constitute explicit usage instructions. It lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'delete_certificate' for certificates, 'er_record_delete' for ER records), or any warnings about irreversible effects, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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