hcloud_zone_rrset_change_protection_action

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

The annotations already disclose that this is a destructive, non-read-only, open-world operation. The description adds the primary-mode constraint and an operation-specific error, but it does not explain what protection changes imply, whether enabling/disabling is reversible, or what authorization is required. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded with the operation's purpose and constraint, then uses a compact error table for the notable failure mode. Every sentence and table row contributes useful information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 mutation tool with rich schema descriptions and annotations, the description supplies the key mode restriction and specific error behavior. It does not describe the return value, but there is no output schema and the `wait` parameter's schema description already explains polling behavior.

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 all parameters, including the nested `change` boolean, are already well documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the general concept of an RRSet's protection, which is appropriate at the baseline level.

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 verb and resource: changing an RRSet's protection within a Zone. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that change Zone protection or update RRSet records, so an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly limits applicability to Zones in primary mode and documents the resulting `incorrect_zone_mode` error. It does not name alternative tools for other modes, but the operational context is clear enough for correct selection.

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