Clear rDNS

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it names what is destroyed (the customer override), what replaces it (the automatic VPSnet PTR, or nothing when no automatic hostname exists), the required OAuth scope and API-key access level, and the absence of idempotency-keying. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive route.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct load: purpose, post-condition, auth requirements, idempotency caveat. The primary action is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description covers the post-call state, permission prerequisites, and retry safety. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 ip and orderNo are already documented, and the description's 'address returned by get_rdns' largely repeats the ip field description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Clear a customer PTR override') and anchors it to a concrete address returned by get_rdns. An agent can distinguish this from change_rdns/get_rdns without opening any 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?

Gives clear context for when this applies — an address previously returned by get_rdns — and describes both outcomes after the call. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling change_rdns, so no exclusion or alternative is spelled out.

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