Delete DNS zone

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses irreversibility, the deletion of all records, and the two-step confirmation flow with a short-lived token requiring user confirmation. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that helps an agent avoid unsafe actions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the most critical fact (permanent deletion), and every clause adds value: scope, irreversibility, confirm flow, and user interaction. No filler.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, this description is complete. It states what is destroyed, the irreversible nature, and the confirmation protocol, giving an agent sufficient information to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful workflow semantics for confirmToken: first call returns a token, then ask the user, then call again with the token. This goes beyond the schema's field-level description by explaining the required interaction sequence.

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 a DNS zone including all its records." It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_rrset by stating it deletes the zone and all contained records.

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: use this when you want to permanently remove a DNS zone and all its records. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling list and the phrase 'including all its records' imply the contrast with record-level deletion tools.

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