Change RRSet protection

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

The description adds context beyond the idempotent hint by explaining that protected RRSets cannot be changed or deleted until protection is removed. This clarifies the functional impact of the tool. No contradictions 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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple toggle tool with four well-documented parameters, an idempotency annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and the resulting behavior. It omits edge cases like error handling, but these are not essential for this tool's simplicity.

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 fully describes all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. The description does map the 'change' parameter to enable/disable behavior, but this is already in the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the action (enable or disable), the resource (change protection of an RRSet), and the consequence (protected RRSet cannot be changed or deleted until protection is removed). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like change_zone_protection or change_rrset_ttl.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like change_zone_protection. The purpose is implied by the name and focus on RRSets, but no direct comparison or exclusions are provided.

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