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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. What the description should add is missing: whether detaching drops inbound routing immediately, whether the number becomes reusable or is released, whether the action is reversible, and what happens to existing calls. The trailing 'No carrier settings change' is ambiguous next to a destructive detach and could mislead an agent into thinking nothing is altered on the Skysay side.

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?

A single dense paragraph that leads with unrelated service-level material about passwords, verification calls, billing and reachability checks before (never) reaching this tool's purpose. Sentences about rate limits and OPTIONS probes belong to sibling tools and dilute the front-loaded signal that an agent needs.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition supplies no information about effects, reversibility, error conditions, or return values. The content that is present concerns other tools entirely, leaving nothing an agent can use to invoke this one safely.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing. connection_id and number_id are inferable from their names, but project_id is completely unexplained, as are the length constraints and what happens when the pair does not match an existing attachment.

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 describes the umbrella SIP-trunk service ('create, read or change a carrier SIP connection and its numbers') rather than the specific operation named by the tool. The verbs 'detach' or 'remove' never appear, so an agent reading only the description cannot tell that this call unlinks a number from a connection. It is effectively a restatement of the family, not of the tool.

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?

Sibling tools are named (attach_sip_connection_number, check_sip_connection_number_ownership, start_sip_connection_test_call), but the description never states when to call detach rather than attach, update_sip_connection, or disable_sip_connection. There is no prerequisite, no exclusion, and no consequence-based guidance for choosing this tool.

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