Preview trunk deletion cascade

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which align with the description. The description adds behavioral detail: 'active_calls is read live from Redis' and lists possible error messages (NO_ACTIVE_CUSTOMER, etc.), going beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise sentences plus a list of errors. Purpose and usage are front-loaded. Every element adds value; no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description only lists fields (src_ips, tns_routed_here, active_calls, cdr_count) without specifying return type, structure, or format. For a preview tool, agents need to know what to expect (e.g., object with numeric fields). This gap reduces completeness.

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 100% with trunk_id described as 'Trunk group UUID (find it with trunk_list).' The description adds no further parametric semantics beyond implying the trunk must be owned. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Get per-trunk cascade-preview counts' with specific fields (src_ips, tns_routed_here, active_calls, cdr_count). It explicitly differentiates from sibling trunk_delete by instructing 'Use before trunk_delete to see what would be affected.'

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use before trunk_delete') and practical context (active_calls read live from Redis). Does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools, but the directive is strong and clear.

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