Delete inbound

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations: it explicitly states the irreversible nature ('cannot be undone') and the cascade effect ('and all of its clients'). Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description provides specific behavioral context about the side effect on clients. It does not contradict the annotations, and the additional detail about the cascade is important for an agent to understand the full impact before calling.

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?

The description is two short sentences with zero filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded ('Permanently delete an inbound'), followed by the essential warning about irreversibility. Every word serves a purpose, and it is easy to scan quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one integer parameter, no output schema, destructive action), the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, the side effect (clients deletion), and irreversibility. It doesn't mention error handling (e.g., behavior if ID doesn't exist), but that information is often not necessary for a deletion tool, and the annotations (idempotentHint) hint at behavior for repeats. Overall, the essential context is present.

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?

The input schema already covers the parameter fully: 'Numeric inbound ID to delete' and the required field 'id'. The description only repeats 'by ID' without adding new meaning—no format, validation rules, or additional constraints are introduced. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 states exactly what it does: 'Permanently delete an inbound and all of its clients by ID.' The verb 'delete' is specific, the resource 'inbound' is clear, and the scope ('all of its clients') distinguishes it from sibling delete_client. This is unambiguous and helps an agent select it without confusion.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever an inbound needs to be permanently removed, given its straightforward action. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use update_inbound to modify instead'), but because it's the only delete-inbound tool and the action is clear, an agent can infer the correct usage context. A more explicit 'when not to use' would be beneficial, but it's not misleading.

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