delete_dns_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only repeats the destructive verb without stating consequences such as irreversibility, prerequisite policy state, or potential failures. It does not contradict the schema, but it fails to add meaningful behavioral context beyond the word 'Delete.'

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 short and front-loaded, with the action stated in the first sentence and parameter details in a compact list. Every clause adds useful 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?

The description provides enough param semantics to call the tool and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. However, the absence of behavioral warnings about deletion, and the incomplete 'REQUIRED' emphasis, leave gaps for a destructive operation with no annotations.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description supplies valuable parameter guidance: host may be a console name, ID, or composite MAC:numericId, site is a name or ID, and policy_id is obtained from list_dns_policies. It could be clearer that all three parameters are required, given the schema lists all as required and only policy_id is marked REQUIRED.

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 first sentence, 'Delete a DNS policy,' uses a specific verb and resource, exactly matching the tool's purpose. Among many delete_* siblings, the DNS policy resource is unambiguous and distinct.

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 the expected workflow by telling the agent to obtain policy_id from list_dns_policies. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but no alternative deletion tool for DNS policies exists, so the context is clear enough.

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