placetel_deactivate_numberDeactivate a phone number by ID through the Placetel Web API, removing its activation. Use this destructive action when a number should no longer be active.
Deactivate a number. (DELETE /numbers/{id}/activation) Destructive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Path parameter id. | |
| response_format | No | Output format: 'markdown' (human-readable, default) or 'json' (machine-readable). | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Destructive' label adds no new behavioral insight. It does not explain what deactivation actually does to the number, whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. The endpoint path is the only additional detail beyond structured fields.
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 definition is short and front-loads the action, then adds the HTTP route and a safety label. It is efficient, though the 'Destructive' sentence largely duplicates annotation data and could have carried more useful context instead.
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 mutation on a phone number, the description is too thin: it does not state the operational effect of deactivation, any caveats, or what the caller receives. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema documents parameters, but the description leaves important behavioral understanding missing.
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 the required 'id' and optional 'response_format' are already documented by the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as what the id refers to or how output format affects the response, so 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Deactivate a number') and includes the underlying HTTP endpoint, making the action concrete. It is distinguishable in practice from the sibling 'placetel_activate_number', although the description does not explicitly name that sibling.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of reactivation or the related activate_number tool. The only implied usage comes from the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.