Delete RRSet

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses irreversibility, the short-lived confirmation token, and the requirement to ask the user before confirming. This adds significant behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 purpose, and every clause adds value: irreversibility, scope of deletion, and the confirmation workflow. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and irreversibility. It does not describe the post-deletion response or edge cases like protected zones, but the schema and annotations fill most gaps, making this sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description, including confirmToken's omit-on-first-call behavior. The tool description adds workflow context but no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete an RRSet (DNS record set) with all its records.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_zone (zone-level deletion) and remove_records (record-level removal) by emphasizing the entire RRSet is deleted.

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 clearly explains the required two-step workflow: first call returns a confirmation token, ask the user, then call again with confirmToken. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the 'with all its records' phrasing implies this is for whole-RRSet deletion rather than partial record removal.

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