Remove records from an RRSet

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that removing the last record deletes the entire RRSet and explains the confirmation token mechanism (first call returns a short-lived token bound to the record list). This adds significant behavioral context not provided by the annotation, such as the two-step nature and the specific destructive consequence.

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 core action. The first sentence states what it does and the destructive edge case; the second explains the confirmation token flow. Every sentence contributes crucial information without redundancy.

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 (multi-step with confirmation token) and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: matching by value, RRSet deletion on last record, and the confirmation token flow. The schema covers parameter specifics, and the description fills the key behavioral gaps. However, it does not specify what the second call returns or any prerequisites (e.g., zone existence), which would make it more complete.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that records are matched by value and by explaining the confirmToken's purpose ('first call returns a token'), which complements the schema's description of the token as a confirmation from a previous call. This additional semantic clarity warrants a score above baseline.

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 removes specific records from an RRSet, matched by value, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_rrset (which removes the whole RRSet) and add/set records. It also highlights a key consequence (RRSet deletion when last record removed), making the purpose 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?

The description implies when to use this tool (to remove specific records from an existing RRSet) and outlines the two-step confirmation process, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool naming.

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