delete_dns_host_override

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, and it does: it reveals that the deletion is staged until explicitly applied, and that confirmation is mandatory. This adds significant insight beyond the schema, though it does not mention error handling or whether the deletion is reversible. The staging mechanism is a critical behavioral trait that the agent needs to know.

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 sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the mandatory confirmation and the staging behavior. Every word adds value, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 deletion tool with moderate complexity, the description covers the essential operational details: what it does, the confirmation requirement, and the staging mechanism. The output schema exists, so return format is handled. It does not mention reversibility or downstream effects, but these are not critical for invoking the tool correctly. It is sufficient for an agent to use it safely.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the confirm parameter (required) and apply parameter (staging vs immediate), and the override_id is implicitly the target by 'by ID'. However, it does not explain that confirm is a safety flag or the default behavior of apply=false, leaving some room for interpretation. It covers the key parameters but not exhaustively.

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 states a clear verb (delete), a specific resource (DNS host override), and an identifier (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_dns_host_override and list_dns_host_overrides by the action and the mention of ID-based deletion.

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?

It explicitly states the prerequisite 'Requires confirm=true' and explains the staging behavior with apply_changes('dns') or apply=true. This gives clear context on when the action takes effect, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it. The staging behavior is a strong usage differentiator from direct-apply tools.

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