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 by structured data. The description adds a genuine scoping fact (routing is untouched) but doesn't say what is actually severed or how to restore it (re-attach via upsert_hours), nor whether the schedule record survives.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler: the positive scope comes first and the negative scope second. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With one required param, no output schema and covered annotations, the description is close to sufficient, but the mismatch between the 'receptionist' framing and the ivr_config_id parameter is an unresolved gap for a destructive operation, as is the absence of any recovery/re-attach note.

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% and the description never mentions ivr_config_id. The tool is framed around a 'receptionist', yet the required parameter is an IVR config ID, and neither schema nor description explains what that ID identifies or where to obtain it, leaving ambiguity an agent cannot resolve.

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 states a specific verb+resource: stopping one receptionist from using its opening-hours schedule, which also clarifies that the tool detaches rather than deletes the hours data itself (contrary to the 'delete_' name). It partially differentiates from siblings by explicitly excluding DID routing changes, which contrasts with set_number_routing/update_forwarding, though it doesn't reference the upsert_receptionist_* family.

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?

It gives one useful exclusion ('does not change DID open/closed routing'), implying this tool is for schedule detachment only. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when an agent should prefer this over e.g. upsert_hours, so usage must be inferred.

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