delete_txt_record

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

Although destructiveHint is already true, the description adds meaningful detail: it requires confirm:true to act, otherwise it is a dry run that changes nothing. It also discloses that the tool looks up the exact existing record first rather than guessing TTL/value, which is important behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 four sentences with each one serving a distinct purpose: purpose/example, destructive behavior/confirm requirement, lookup behavior, and sibling alternative. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or repetition.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, destructive behavior, confirmation requirement, and alternative tool routing. The output schema exists, so return value details are not needed in the description. An agent has enough information to decide when to use this tool and how to invoke it safely.

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 both domain and confirm. The description reinforces the confirm parameter's dry-run behavior and adds the 'looks up the exact existing record' detail, but this is more about tool behavior than new parameter-level meaning. It meets the baseline but does not add substantial semantic value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete the Route 53 TXT record for a domain.' It also gives a concrete use case (cleaning up an ACME DNS-01 challenge record) and explicitly differentiates itself from delete_domain_record for CNAME records. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to clean up TXT records left by create_txt_record or issue_wildcard_cert. It also provides an explicit alternative: 'For a CNAME record, use delete_domain_record instead.' This gives clear context and exclusion criteria, leaving little to inference.

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