Delete a conference bridge

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

Annotations already mark it destructive and non-readonly. The description adds valuable behavioral context: may notify recipients or change tenant data, and requires operator write opt-in. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence carries useful information: endpoint, body, reference, requirements, side effects. No filler.

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, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, and endpoint. With destructiveHint already set and no output schema, this is sufficient. It could mention response code or idempotency, but those are minor gaps given annotations.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions; baseline is 3. The description adds 'Body fields: none' and restates confirm:true, which is already in schema. It does not explain bridgeID semantics or the query parameter beyond what schema offers. Slight additional value but not significant.

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 the specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'conference bridge', and includes the exact REST endpoint. It is clearly distinct from sibling modify/create/get conference bridge tools, with no ambiguity about the action.

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?

Provides clear context for when the tool can be used: requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the prerequisites and side-effect warning guide the agent. Missing explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions, so not a 5.

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