delete_dns_subdomain

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds value by explicitly warning 'ДЕСТРУКТИВНО' (DESTRUCTIVE) and stating the required permission 'Требует права pdns/edit'. It also names the underlying endpoint, which helps an agent understand what system is affected. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded: the action is stated first, followed by the destructive warning and permission requirement. Every sentence earns its place. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and readable.

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 delete operation, the description covers the key context: what is deleted, that it is destructive, and the required permission. However, it does not mention the confirm parameter's role in preventing accidental deletion, nor what happens after deletion (e.g., propagation, irreversibility). With no output schema, a bit more context about the response or side effects would improve completeness.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (id, confirm, server_id). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. The 'confirm' parameter's purpose is already clear from the schema ('Нужно true, чтобы выполнить операцию'), and the description doesn't elaborate on it. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the action: deleting a subdomain from the subdomains table, and even names the underlying API endpoint (pdns/delete_subdomain). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_dns_subdomain and edit_dns_subdomain by the verb 'Удалить' (delete). It doesn't explicitly contrast with delete_dns_domain or delete_dns_record, but the resource is clear enough.

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 it: when you need to delete a DNS subdomain. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., delete_dns_domain for domains, delete_dns_record for records). The required permission 'pdns/edit' is a useful prerequisite hint, but no explicit routing guidance is given.

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