Change RRSet protection

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description reveals that disabling removes the last safeguard and requires a confirmToken, adding critical behavioral context. It also notes that enabling is immediate. This goes beyond the annotation and is not contradicted by it.

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 concise—two sentences—and front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence adds essential behavioral detail without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, and the confirmToken flow. The parameters are well-documented in the schema, and the description adds the missing behavioral nuance, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, providing detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that the 'change' parameter's false value (disabling) specifically requires a confirmToken, and that enabling is immediate. This reinforces the schema without repeating it.

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 states the tool toggles change protection on an RRSet, distinguishing it from zone-level protection (sibling change_zone_protection) and other RRSet operations. It uses a specific verb ('Enable or disable') and names the target resource ('change protection of an RRSet').

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 provides clear behavioral context: enabling is immediate, while disabling requires a confirmToken and is described as removing the last safeguard against delete_rrset and set_records. This implies when to use the tool and the caution needed, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclude any use cases.

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