Delete DNSSEC Record

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by spelling out what idempotency means concretely ('deleting a non-existent key tag returns success') and by scoping the effect to the registry. It stops short of noting downstream consequences such as the domain losing DNSSEC validation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the use condition, then the idempotency guarantee. Every sentence carries distinct information with 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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, use case, and idempotency behavior, which is sufficient to call it correctly. It omits any note on required permissions or the fact that removing a DS record disables DNSSEC for the domain, a relevant consequence for a destructive registry operation.

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% for both parameters, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond noting the record is 'identified by key tag', which merely restates the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Remove a DNSSEC DS record from the registry for a domain') that unambiguously separates it from sibling deletions like delete_dns_record, delete_glue_record, and delete_cloudflare_record. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast scope, so it falls short of the top tier.

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?

'Use when retiring a key' gives an explicit condition for invocation, which is more than implied usage. It does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., when the key is still active), so 4 rather than 5.

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