delete_sip_trunkRemove a SIP trunk permanently. This disconnects its phone numbers, preventing them from making or receiving calls. This action cannot be undone.
Remove a SIP trunk. Phone numbers on it can no longer make or take calls. Not reversible.
Requires scope sip_trunks:write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The record id, e.g. "6a96a3ead6e886d42462dd3e". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructive and not read-only, but the description adds non-obvious context: the delete is irreversible, phone numbers on the trunk lose call capability, and the required scope `sip_trunks:write` is disclosed. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: the operation, the user-facing consequence, and the required permission. No filler or repetition.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering safety and a description covering irreversibility and scope, the definition is sufficient. It doesn't describe the success response, but there is no output schema and delete responses are typically minimal. Minor gap: what happens to assigned phone numbers beyond loss of call capability.
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% and the single `id` parameter includes an example in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are needed given the rich schema coverage.
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 ('Remove a SIP trunk') and adds a distinguishing consequence: phone numbers on it can no longer make or take calls. This clearly separates it from sibling delete_* tools like delete_phone_number.
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 when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided. The description explains the effect but not when an agent should choose delete_sip_trunk over update_sip_trunk or check_sip_trunk_status, nor any prerequisites such as ensuring no active calls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.