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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds valuable context — irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), the DID-assignment precondition, and a return indication. It omits any mention of the two-phase confirmation_token workflow, but that is documented in the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier, then the destructive warning and precondition. Efficient overall, though the trailing 'Returns a confirmation message on success' is thin and slightly at odds with the two-step flow described in the schema.

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 no-output-schema tool, the description covers identity, irreversibility, and the DID precondition. It does not surface the non-obvious two-call confirmation flow, which an agent must infer from the schema, leaving a modest gap.

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%, so both id and confirmation_token are fully documented in the schema itself, including the two-phase confirm/retry semantics. The description adds nothing beyond 'by id', so the 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 specific verb+resource: delete a Voice IN Trunk (inbound voice trunk) by id. It explicitly scopes the resource type, distinguishing it from sibling deleters like delete_sms_trunk and delete_trunk_group, and names the identifier used to target it.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for use: trunks still assigned to DIDs cannot be deleted, implying the caller must unassign first. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or describe the unassign path, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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