Delete trunk IP ACL entry

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint/idempotentHint, but the description adds genuine value beyond them: the consequence of deletion (SIP traffic from that address is no longer trusted and needs other authentication) and the feature-flag precondition. It does not restate idempotency or error behavior, but the added consequence is substantive.

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 consequence, then the gating. No ceremonial or redundant phrasing; every sentence carries information.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect, prerequisites, and the confirm gate, while annotations carry the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain (error/idempotency behavior when the entry is absent, which the idempotentHint partly covers).

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 50%: confirm is well documented in the schema, but ip_acl_id has only a pattern and no prose. The description mentions confirm: true (repeating the schema) and says nothing about what ip_acl_id selects, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3.

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 an IP ACL entry from this Vobiz account') and immediately clarifies the downstream effect on SIP trust. The add/update/list/delete_ip_acl_entry sibling family makes the scope unambiguous.

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 real prerequisites (gated by VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING and confirm: true), which is more than implied usage. But it never states when to prefer this over update_ip_acl_entry or what to do instead if the entry should merely be untrusted, so routing guidance is incomplete.

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