placetel_delete_faxPermanently delete a fax by ID using the Placetel API. Removes the specified fax record via DELETE /faxes/{id}.
Delete a fax. (DELETE /faxes/{id}) 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, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so 'Destructive.' merely repeats structured data. Nothing is added about what is actually removed (fax record vs. stored document), whether the deletion is reversible, or what permissions are required for a mutation with openWorldHint=true.
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 short fragments, front-loaded with the action and endpoint; no wasted prose. 'Destructive.' is redundant against the annotations, keeping it from a 5.
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 two-parameter delete with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It falls short on sourcing the id and on consequences of the destructive call, which an agent would want before invoking it.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id and response_format) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about the id's origin or the format toggle, 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a fax') plus the underlying endpoint (DELETE /faxes/{id}), which cleanly separates it from placetel_list_faxes, placetel_create_fax, and placetel_get_fax. It doesn't name siblings explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no note that the fax id must come from placetel_list_faxes or placetel_get_fax first. The only hint is the word 'Destructive', which signals caution but not selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.