Delete DNS policy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered; 'IRREVERSIBLE' reinforces it but adds little beyond that. The description omits the more valuable behavioral fact embedded in the schema — that without confirm='YES' the tool only returns a preview — leaving the two-step safety workflow undisclosed at the description level.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the destructive warning is placed immediately after the purpose. The terseness is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than optimal completeness.

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, open-world mutation with no output schema and a confirm/dry-run safety mechanism, the description is too thin: it doesn't explain the preview flow, what happens to dependent rules, or where the required id comes from. An agent must open the schema to call this 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?

The description says nothing about any of the three parameters. Schema coverage is 67%, so the schema documents confirm and dry_run reasonably well, but the required 'id' has no description anywhere and the description does not explain how to obtain a policy ID or that confirm/dry_run gate execution.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a DNS policy'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list/get/create/update DNS policy tools. It does not name or differentiate against an alternative explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warning about prerequisites such as the policy being referenced by active rules. The only steer is the word 'IRREVERSIBLE,' which implies caution but doesn't tell an agent when or when not to call it.

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