conduyt_release_ring_group_number

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the destructive nature, the active-ring-group guardrail, and that force cannot bypass it. It could go further on permissions or whether release is reversible, but the key mutation risks are covered.

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?

Four tight sentences with the destructive label front-loaded and every sentence supplying actionable constraint information. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it safely: destructive label, confirm matching, active-group blocking, and force/forceReason rules. Missing permissions or return behavior are minor given the schema coverage.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by reinforcing the exact-match confirm requirement, the narrow force case, and the fact that force does not bypass an active ring group.

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 resource ('a phone number from ring-group routing'), and flags it as DESTRUCTIVE. An agent can distinguish it from ring-group creation/deletion or call-flow wiring siblings.

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?

Explicitly gives the blocking condition (an ACTIVE ring group still referencing the number), the required remediation (delete or repoint that group first), and the precise limited role of force. This is strong when/when-not guidance rather than inferred usage.

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