Remove the fax configuration from a number

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so repeating 'Destructive' earns no credit. The endpoint notation (DELETE .../fax_settings) adds modest context, but the description doesn't say whether the number itself survives, what happens to pending fax traffic, or how the result is returned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending with the risk flag. Every element earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 destructive mutation with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers what the agent needs to call it. Only the post-deletion state of the number is unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 parameters are documented structurally and baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about number_or_id format (number vs. internal id) or the response_format choice.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('fax configuration from a number'), which clearly distinguishes it from placetel_get_webex_number_fax_settings and placetel_configure_webex_number_fax_settings by operation. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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 word 'Destructive' plus 'Remove' implies the removal scenario, but the description never states when an agent should choose this over reconfiguring via placetel_configure_webex_number_fax_settings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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