Delete a profile for a number

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's single word 'Destructive' adds no new information. It does not say what is destroyed, whether it can be undone, or what happens to the number's routing/configuration afterwards — the meaningful gaps for a destructive mutation.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Brevity is appropriate, though it borders on under-specification for a destructive operation.

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, irreversible-looking delete with no output schema and only coarse annotations, the description omits prerequisites, side effects, and confirmation of what is removed. An agent has to guess at the blast radius 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 the parameters are documented; the path template does clarify the roles of number_id (the number) versus id (the profile). Beyond that the description adds nothing to the schemas' minimal 'Path parameter id' text.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a profile for a number'), and the included REST path (DELETE /numbers/{number_id}/profiles/{id}) makes the object unambiguous against siblings like placetel_delete_provisioning or placetel_delete_routing_plan. It does not explicitly contrast with related siblings such as placetel_deactivate_number, but the resource is clear enough to select it.

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 versus alternatives (deactivate a profile, update a profile, or delete the number itself). The agent must infer that this permanently removes a per-number profile.

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