Change zone protection

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral details: enabling is immediate, disabling requires a confirmToken and is 'exactly like a deletion.' This adds meaningful context about the two-step flow and risk profile that the annotation alone doesn't convey. 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence efficiently conveys the critical exception for disabling. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's main purpose and the crucial confirmToken requirement for disabling. It doesn't describe return values, but the schema already explains the token return in the confirmToken parameter description. For a simple toggle tool with rich schema documentation, this is sufficiently complete, though a brief mention of the response would make it fully self-contained.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including the confirmToken flow. The description adds minimal additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already offers (it reinforces the token requirement but doesn't introduce new syntax or semantics). Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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's function: enabling or disabling delete protection of a DNS zone. It uses a specific verb ('enable or disable') and resource ('delete protection of a DNS zone'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_zone or update_zone.

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 context on when the tool is used (for toggling delete protection) and highlights the special requirement for disabling (needs a confirmToken). It implicitly contrasts with delete_zone by noting the protection is the 'last safeguard' against deletion, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool.

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