delete_dns_record

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description nonetheless adds real value beyond them: the required 'pdns/edit' privilege and the backend endpoint, both of which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of saying whether the deletion is recoverable or how an empty/ambiguous zone is handled.

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 terse segments: action, destructiveness flag, permission requirement. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the internal-endpoint parenthetical is somewhat administrative. No wasted sentences.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the two critical things an agent needs beyond the schema: that it is destructive and that elevated pdns/edit rights are required. Irreversibility and post-delete state are left unstated, a minor gap given annotations already flag destructiveness.

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% with all four parameters documented (including the English note that confirm must be true), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or disambiguation for zone/name/type beyond what the schema already supplies, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Delete a DNS record from a zone') and even names the underlying endpoint (pdns/delete_dns), which pins down exactly which record-level delete this is. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like delete_dns_zone or delete_dns_subdomain, but the 'record from a zone' phrasing makes the target scope inferable.

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 names a hard precondition ('Requires pdns/edit rights'), which is genuine usage context, but it gives no when-to-use vs when-to-use-something-else guidance and never routes the agent to an alternative (e.g. update/edit for partial changes). Usage is implied by the destructive nature rather than stated.

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