Delete a routing plan

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so "Destructive." merely restates structured data. It adds nothing an agent could not already read: no statement about what happens to routings attached to the plan, whether deletion is reversible, whether the plan must be empty first, or how a missing id behaves.

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, with no filler prose. The one weak spot is that the trailing "Destructive." duplicates the annotation rather than earning its place with new information.

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, open-world mutation with no output schema, an agent still lacks critical context: side effects on dependent routings, permission requirements, and failure behavior. The annotations cover the safety profile but the description leaves the operational picture thin.

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 path parameter and the response_format enum are already documented in the schema. The description adds no semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 routing plan") and even names the underlying endpoint DELETE /routing_plans/{id}, which makes the object of deletion unambiguous among siblings like placetel_delete_routing or placetel_delete_routing_plan only by name. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling delete tools, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions alternatives such as placetel_update_routing_plan (to modify instead of remove) or placetel_delete_routing (for a child routing rather than the plan itself). "Destructive" is a warning label, not usage guidance.

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