Delete trunk origination URI

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the downstream effect (trunks stop routing outbound calls to that destination), the prerequisite for trunk-only routes, and the environment/confirmation gate. It does not say whether the deletion is reversible or what error surfaces when the gate is closed, which keeps it below a 5.

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 with zero filler: effect first, prerequisite second, gates third. Every clause carries actionable information and the most important constraint is 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?

For a destructive, gated mutation with no output schema, the description covers consequence, prerequisite, environment gate and confirmation semantics — enough for an agent to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about failure behavior or irreversibility.

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 already documented in the schema and its full meaning is restated here, but uri_id carries no description beyond a UUID regex pattern. The description clarifies the confirm requirement in prose but adds nothing about uri_id, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 an origination URI) scoped to the Vobiz account, which cleanly separates it from list_origination_uris, create_origination_uri and update_origination_uri in the sibling set. An agent knows exactly which operation this is without opening the 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 a real precondition ('add a replacement first if it is a trunk's only route') and a gating condition (VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING plus confirm: true), which tells the agent when this call is permissible. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (update_origination_uri / create_origination_uri) as an explicit fallback, so it is context rather than full routing guidance.

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