liara_delete_zone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is irreversible, requires specific permissions, affects associated resources (e.g., DNS records), or has rate limits. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 a single, direct sentence ('Delete a DNS zone') with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (a destructive deletion operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical context like what happens post-deletion, error conditions, or confirmation requirements. For a mutation tool with significant implications, this minimal description leaves too many unknowns for safe and effective use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'zoneId' parameter clearly documented as 'The zone ID to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to obtain the zoneId. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a DNS zone'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'liara_get_zone' (read) and 'liara_create_zone' (create), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing zone), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or when to choose deletion over other operations like updating. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'liara_delete_dns_record' for record-level deletion), the lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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