Change DNS Zone RRSet Protection

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

Annotations already indicate this is mutating, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the consequence that protection guards against accidental modification or deletion, which is useful but mostly reinforces what the tool's name and the `change` parameter already imply. 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?

A single sentence that states the action, the resource, and the purpose with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 toggle operation with comprehensive parameter schemas and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is functionally complete. An agent can select the tool and invoke it correctly from the provided information. Minor missing piece is explicit guidance about how this differs from zone-level protection mutations.

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 four parameters, including the boolean `change` behavior and the id_or_name, name, and type fields. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly identifies the action ('Enable or disable change protection') and the resource ('on an RRSet'), making it obvious what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling protection tools such as hetzner_change_zone_protection, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'to guard against accidental modification or deletion' provides clear context for when this tool should be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the intended use case is clear for a resource-specific protection toggle.

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