Delete SIP trunk

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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds material context they don't: this is a soft delete, routed numbers are unlinked and stop receiving calls through it, and the call is gated by an environment flag plus an explicit confirm. Those downstream consequences are exactly what an agent needs before a destructive call.

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, each earning its place, with the operation, its side effects, and its gating requirement front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, gating, and confirmation adequately. It stops short of saying whether a soft-deleted trunk can be restored or what the response returns, a minor omission given the annotations already carry the safety profile.

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 only 50% — confirm is documented in the schema, trunk_id only via a pattern. The description reinforces 'confirm: true' but adds no format or constraint detail for trunk_id beyond the schema's regex, so it does not fully compensate for the 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 a SIP trunk') and immediately qualifies the operation as a soft delete, which separates it from hard-delete siblings and from delete_sip_endpoint/delete_application by resource. An agent knows exactly what entity is affected and how.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('Gated by VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING and confirm: true') but never states when to choose this over alternatives such as update_sip_trunk or release_phone_number, nor any when-not condition. Usage is implied by the destructive nature rather than explained.

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