Release a D1Jiema phone number to end its SMS session and update account state; include the phone and set confirm=true explicitly.
Release a D1Jiema phone. This changes account state; set confirm=true explicitly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | Yes | ||
| confirm | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose that the operation mutates account state and requires an explicit confirm flag. It omits other important traits: permissions required, reversibility, cost implications, and what happens if confirm is omitted (silent no-op vs. error).
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 tight sentences with no filler and the state-change warning prioritized before the parameter note. 'Explicitly' is mildly redundant but the text is otherwise lean.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the mutation risk is signaled. Still missing for a state-changing tool with zero annotations and an undocumented required parameter are the consequences of releasing (e.g., whether the number is lost, whether it affects balance) and what confirm=true protects against.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains the confirm flag ('set confirm=true explicitly') but says nothing about the required 'phone' parameter — its format, whether it is a number or an ID, or where the value comes from. Coverage is only partial.
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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Release a D1Jiema phone'), which separates it from read-oriented siblings like d1jiema_get_phone or d1jiema_settings_read. However, it never clarifies what 'release' actually means operationally (returns the number to the pool? frees a session?), so an agent still has to guess at the effect relative to siblings like d1jiema_block.
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 stated when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the eleven sibling tools. 'Set confirm=true explicitly' is an invocation instruction, not usage guidance, so the agent gets no help deciding between release and block/get_phone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.