Delete SIP endpoint

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

Beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses exactly what is destroyed and what breaks: registered devices disconnect immediately and the SIP URI stops working. It also reveals a non-obvious operational gate (VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING), which an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 operation and its irreversible nature, followed by side effects and prerequisites. No redundant or filler content.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the essentials are covered: irreversibility, downstream impact, and the env-var/confirm gate. It omits post-deletion behavior (e.g., whether the ID can be reused or what error a missing/invalid ID returns), which is minor but leaves a small gap.

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%; the 'confirm' parameter is fully documented in the schema (and the description's 'confirm: true' only restates it). endpoint_id is never described in prose — only a regex pattern hints at its format — so the description does not compensate for the uncovered half.

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 ('Permanently delete') and a precisely named resource ('Vobiz SIP endpoint'), which is enough to distinguish it from the adjacent delete_sip_trunk and delete_trunk_credential siblings. An agent can pick this tool 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?

The word 'Permanently' plus the disclosed consequence (registered devices disconnect immediately) makes the usage context clear: only for irreversible removal. It names no explicit alternative (e.g., update_sip_endpoint) and gives no when-not guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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