call_logs_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses permanent deletion, attached audio deletion, non-deletion of activity, and irreversibility. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits, which are minor omissions.

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 structured with clear sections (main description, workflow tips, common use cases) and is front-loaded. It is efficient but could be slightly shorter without losing clarity.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains effects, prerequisites, irreversibility, and provides examples, leaving no gaps.

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 has one parameter 'id' with description 'ID of the call log to delete'; coverage is 100%. The description adds context by advising to use call_logs/list to find the ID first and shows example values, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool 'Delete a call log' and explains it permanently removes a call log. It distinguishes from siblings like call_logs_create, call_logs_get, call_logs_list, and call_logs_attach_audio by highlighting that the related activity is NOT removed, which is a key differentiator.

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 provides explicit workflow tips: use call_logs/list to find the call log ID first, notes that audio is also deleted, activity remains, and the action cannot be undone. It also gives common use cases with example JSON, guiding exactly when and how to use the tool.

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