conduyt_remove_dnc

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that deletion is soft, states the side effect on the number/contact, and names the required 'dnc' API-key scope. It doesn't say whether the soft-delete is reversible or how to restore an entry, nor what errors occur when the id is missing.

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?

A single tight sentence cluster with zero filler; the verb, scope, effect, prerequisite, and auth requirement are all front-loaded.

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?

Covers the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly: what it acts on, the id's origin, the scope requirement, and the effect. With no output schema, it could still note what the response contains or idempotency behavior on repeated calls.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage as a UUID sourced from conduyt_list_dnc. The description reinforces that the id is an entry id but adds no format or lookup detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('Remove (soft-delete) a Do-Not-Call / litigator entry by its entry id') plus the downstream effect ('unblocks the number/contact'), which plainly separates it from conduyt_add_dnc, conduyt_list_dnc, and conduyt_bulk_dnc_contacts.

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 names the prerequisite step ('Use conduyt_list_dnc to find the entry id first'), routing the agent to the right sibling. It stops short of saying when not to use it (e.g., bulk removal should go to conduyt_bulk_dnc_contacts), so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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