delete_dns_record

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

The destructiveHint annotation already covers destructiveness; the description adds value by explicitly requiring the pdns/edit permission. It does not disclose additional behaviors such as irreversibility side effects or confirmation handling, but the schema covers the confirm flag.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, scope, destructiveness, and permission requirement with no filler. Every element earns its place.

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 simple destructive delete operation, the description plus fully documented schema covers purpose, scope, required permission, and destructive nature. It does not describe return values, but there is no output schema and the operation is straightforward.

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 every parameter already explained in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 description states a specific action (delete), a precise resource (DNS record), and the scope (from a zone), and even references the internal endpoint pdns/delete_dns. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like delete_dns_zone, delete_dns_domain, and delete_dns_subdomain.

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 scope 'from zone' implies this is for individual DNS records, and the destructive warning plus required permission gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool versus deleting a zone or domain.

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