Delete DNS zone

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description earns credit for the extra behavioral facts it supplies: published zones go through a queued/asynchronous removal path rather than instant deletion, and API-key callers need dns:write. It stops short of saying whether the operation is reversible or cancelable once queued.

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?

Three short sentences: the action first, then the behavioral consequence, then the permission requirement. No filler and nothing important buried.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the async queueing behavior and the required scope, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gap: no statement of what happens on an invalid/already-queued zone or how to confirm completion (list_networking_operations-style follow-up).

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?

There is a single required parameter (zone_id) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier (e.g. how to obtain it, whether it accepts a name), which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 precise verb+resource ('Delete a forward DNS zone'), which distinguishes it from delete_dns_record and delete_domain_glue_record among the many delete_* siblings. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, but the resource specificity makes the target unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive verb rather than stated: there is no guidance on preconditions (e.g. whether the zone must be unpublished or empty) or on when to prefer delete_dns_record instead. The 'published zones are queued' note gives some situational context but no when/when-not routing.

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