call_removeDelete a call or text record using its request ID, and cancel the item if it has not been placed. This removes or cancels communications managed through Voicent.
Delete a call or text record. If it hasn't been placed yet, this also cancels it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes | Request ID returned when the call or text was created. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the side effect that a not-yet-placed call is also cancelled, which an agent could not learn from the schema or annotations. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what happens to already-placed record data, keeping 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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the conditional caveat second. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is largely sufficient: the agent knows what is removed and the pending-cancel side effect. A brief note on irreversibility (whether deletion can be undone) would close the remaining 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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a pattern and the note that it is the ID returned at creation. The description adds no additional meaning about request_id, so the schema does all the work and the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description pairs a specific verb ('Delete') with a specific resource ('a call or text record'), so the agent immediately knows the operation. It doesn't name any sibling to distinguish itself from, but the delete semantics are unambiguous and clearly distinct from creation/status siblings like call_status or send_sms.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the removal path, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to an alternative such as archiving or updating status. The conditional clause about unplaced records is helpful context but not selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.