Delete voice application

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the cascade side effect: linked numbers are unlinked and inbound calls to them stop being handled. Combined with the feature-flag gate and the explicit confirm requirement, the agent knows the irreversible consequences before invoking.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the side effect, then the gating conditions. Every clause carries information the agent needs; nothing is padding.

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 destructive, non-readonly mutation with no output schema, the description covers the side effects, the feature-flag prerequisite, and the confirmation gate. It omits whether the deletion is permanent/recoverable and what a successful response contains, but the annotations and the required confirm parameter cover most of the remaining risk.

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 description coverage is 50%: confirm is documented in the schema while app_id is not, and the description only reinforces the confirm: true requirement rather than explaining the app_id pattern (^\d{5,25}$) or how to obtain one. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries half the load.

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 ('Delete a Vobiz application') and immediately scopes the blast radius ('Linked numbers are unlinked'). An agent can distinguish it from delete_sip_trunk, delete_recording, or delete_sub_account without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition pair — the VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING gate and confirm: true — which tells the agent when the call is even permitted. It does not name alternative tools or spell out when deletion is preferable to update_application, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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