Change zone protection

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description adds important behavioral context: 'A protected zone cannot be deleted until the protection is removed.' This explains the practical consequence of enabling protection, which is valuable for the agent. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful non-obvious information.

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 action ('Enable or disable'), and contains no extraneous content. It is concise, well-structured, and easy to parse.

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 two-parameter boolean toggle with an idempotency annotation, the description adequately conveys the purpose and the key behavioral consequence. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but given the simple nature and the absence of an output schema, this is not a significant gap. It is complete enough 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (zone and delete), including descriptions for each. The tool description itself does not add further parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema states. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the explanatory burden.

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 purpose: 'Enable or disable the delete protection of a DNS zone.' It specifies the resource (DNS zone) and the action (toggle delete protection), distinguishing it from related tools like change_rrset_protection (which targets RRsets) and delete_zone (which deletes the 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 implies usage: use this tool when you need to protect or unprotect a zone from deletion. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, nor does it reference alternatives such as change_rrset_protection for RRset-level protection. The context is clear but the guidance is only implied.

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