infomaniak_dns_delete_record

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

Annotations already convey destructive hint and non-read-only. The description adds significant behavioral detail: the two-phase commit process, including the plan preview and confirmation token. This context is not present in annotations and helps the agent understand the deletion is not immediate, requiring a second call. It does not cover token expiry or failure modes, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the two-phase explanation. Every word adds value—no fluff. The structure is clear and easy to parse.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: delete operation with two-phase commit, preview, and token. It doesn't explicitly mention prerequisites like zone ownership, but the schema's zone description includes that. It is sufficiently complete for a destructive tool with good annotations and schema.

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 100%, and each parameter has a detailed description (zone, record_id, confirmation_token). The description adds minimal parameter info beyond referencing the token from the first phase, which the schema already explains. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter semantics well.

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 action: 'Delete a DNS record from an Infomaniak-managed zone.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the two-phase commit explanation further distinguishes it from simple delete tools. It is easily differentiated from sibling tools like infomaniak_dns_create_record and infomaniak_dns_update_record.

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 implies when to use the tool (to delete a DNS record) and provides the two-phase workflow, which is a key usage guideline. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear. The schema reference to infomaniak_dns_list_records for obtaining record_id also guides usage.

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