Disable DNSSEC for a Cloudflare zone

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the failure mode (validating resolvers fail the whole zone) and the tool's blind spot ('Nothing here can check the registrar'). It does not discuss permissions, propagation timing after the call, or reversibility.

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 with no waste: the action comes first, then the prerequisite ordering, then the limitation. Each sentence carries distinct information and the warning is front-loaded before the caveat.

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 destructive, external-facing mutation with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the one thing structured data cannot: the out-of-band registrar step required for a safe call. Only the post-call behavior (propagation, polling) is left unstated.

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 'zone' and 'account' are already documented in the schema, including the zone's domain-or-32-hex-id form and the account label fallback logic. The description references neither parameter, so it contributes no meaning beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence pairs a specific verb with a specific resource ('Turn DNSSEC off for a zone'), making the operation unambiguous and clearly the inverse of the sibling dnssec_enable. It does not explicitly name the sibling, so differentiation is by implication rather than statement.

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 gives a concrete, ordered precondition: remove the DS record at the registrar first and wait for its TTL. It does not name alternatives (e.g. dnssec_enable for the reverse path) or say when disabling is appropriate versus unnecessary, but the operational gating is explicit.

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