conduyt_release_call_flow_tombstone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the number's Twilio configuration is restored and verified, that the tombstone is consumed, that admin rights are required, and the exact 404 and 409 failure semantics. It leaves out whether the operation is idempotent or what a success response contains.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then effects, then the admin requirement and error codes. Every clause carries distinct information; nothing is redundant.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers effects, permissions, and both failure modes. The main remaining gap is the success return shape, which the absence of an output schema leaves undocumented.

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 coverage is 100% – the single parameter phoneNumber is documented as an E.164 number held by the tombstone. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Release') and a narrowly scoped resource ('a number still held by a deleted call flow's tombstone'), plus the concrete effects: restoring the pre-Conduyt Twilio configuration and dropping the tombstone. The tombstone qualifier implicitly separates it from siblings like conduyt_release_ring_group_number, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Admin' signals the permission bar, and the 404/409 conditions tell the agent when the call will fail. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over adjacent release/delete tools (e.g. release_ring_group_number) or what prerequisites must hold before attempting release.

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