Detach a phone number from its assigned agent using the phone number ID, so it can be reassigned or managed separately.
Detach a phone number from its agent. (Tags: Phone numbers)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requestBody | Yes | The JSON request body. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the operation: it doesn't clarify whether the number is merely unassigned or freed, whether the agent is affected, or whether the action is reversible, despite the destructive flag.
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?
One short sentence front-loads the verb and resource with no wasted words, followed only by a tag. It is appropriately sized, though the minimal content leaves room that could have been used for the missing behavioral context.
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 simple single-parameter operation whose annotations cover the safety profile and whose schema covers the parameter, the description is minimally sufficient. However, the ambiguous consequence of a destructive detach (reassignment vs. permanent removal) is left entirely to the agent to guess.
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% and only one parameter exists, so the schema fully documents phone_number_id. The description adds no syntax, format, or ID-source information beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline 3 for schema-heavy definitions.
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 ('detach') and resource ('phone number') plus the source relationship ('from its agent'), so the effect is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling attachPhoneNumber, though the antonym is self-evident from the name.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. Nothing tells the agent when to detach versus releasePhoneNumber or other number-management siblings, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.