cdn_delete_cdn_zone

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden by itself. It names the destroyed resource and the success response, and it usefully discloses that zone_identifier can be an origin domain, CDN domain, or UUID; however, it does not warn that deletion is likely permanent or describe effects on related resources.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler. The 'Smart identifier resolution' note earns its place, and the Args/Returns layout makes the single parameter and outcome immediately readable.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the identifier semantics and success return are covered, and an output schema exists for return details. But the absence of any safety or consequence disclosure, combined with no annotations, leaves the definition incomplete for an agent that must decide whether deletion is appropriate.

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 only declares zone_identifier as a string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by defining the three accepted identifier forms (origin domain, CDN domain, or ID), which is exactly the semantic information needed to call the tool correctly.

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 opens with 'Delete a CDN zone,' a specific verb and resource that clearly states the operation. It is easily distinguished from sibling CDN tools such as cdn_purge_cdn_zone or cdn_update_cdn_zone because only this tool deletes the zone itself.

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 intended trigger is implied by 'Delete a CDN zone': an agent should call this when a CDN zone needs to be removed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, such as using cdn_purge_cdn_zone when only cached content needs clearing.

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