Delete short code

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the trailing 'Destructive.' merely repeats structured data rather than adding context. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint, and says nothing about irreversibility, required scope, or error behavior for a non-existent code.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded with the action first. The redundant 'Destructive.' is minor waste but nothing hinders comprehension.

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, annotations carry the safety profile and the schema is fully described, so the basics are covered. It still lacks confirmation of side effects or failure conditions an agent might need before invoking.

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 the schema already documents id, code_id, and response_format. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 and resource ('Delete short code') and the HTTP path scopes it to a short code under a SIP user, distinguishing it from the sibling list/create short code tools. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives.

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 placetel_list_sip_user_short_codes or placetel_create_sip_user_short_code, and no prerequisites (e.g., the short code must exist, needed permissions) are stated.

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