delete_destination

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Remove') implying a destructive operation, and mentions the return value on success, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the deletion is reversible, error conditions, or side effects. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly. However, the 'Args' label is slightly redundant with the schema, and the description could be more efficient by integrating parameter hints into the main text.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but misses critical context: error handling, authentication needs, confirmation prompts, or what 'Destination deleted' entails. For a mutation tool in this context, more behavioral and safety information is warranted.

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%, with both parameters ('number' and 'id') well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'id' is 'Destination ID from list_destinations'). The description repeats parameter names in the Args section but adds minimal value beyond the schema—it doesn't explain format nuances (e.g., 'number' can be string or integer) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove destination') and target resource ('from DID'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_allowed_ip' or 'delete_sip_account' by specifying the resource type (destination vs. allowed IP or SIP account). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'remove_purchased_did', which might cause some confusion about scope differences.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the destination must exist), when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings like 'list_destinations' (which provides the ID) or 'add_destination'. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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