Create a new mid-call HTTP tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Tool identifier: lowercase letters and underscores, starts with a letter | |
| method | Yes | ||
| schema | No | ||
| headers | No | ||
| timeout | No | Seconds, 1-30 | |
| endpoint | Yes | HTTPS URL to call | |
| description | Yes | When the AI should use it (max 255 chars) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| message | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.) and the description adds no extra behavioral context. No contradiction, but no added value beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence is concise but overly minimal; it could include more detail without harming conciseness. Every word is used but adds little value.
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?
With 7 parameters and an output schema, the description fails to mention return values, side effects, or constraints. Lacks completeness for a tool that creates a new HTTP endpoint.
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?
57% schema description coverage leaves many parameters (method, schema, headers) without descriptions. The tool description does not explain any parameter meaning or usage beyond the schema.
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?
Description explicitly states 'Create a new mid-call HTTP tool.' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update, delete, get, and list.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., update_mid_call_tool). Omits prerequisites, when not to use, or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions clearly (e.g., create_assistant vs create_campaign). However, there is some overlap like get_outbound_assistants vs get_assistants and list_all_phone_numbers vs get_phone_numbers, causing minor ambiguity.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., create_document, delete_label, get_voices). Only minor deviations exist, such as generate_ai_reply and list_all_phone_numbers, but overall the pattern is maintained.
With 75 tools, the server is excessively large. Although the domain is broad (assistants, calls, messaging, etc.), the number of tools makes it difficult for agents to navigate and select the correct one, reducing coherence.
The tool set covers CRUD operations for most resources, plus webhooks, AI replies, and reference data fetching. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_conversation, no attach phone number to assistant), but the surface is largely comprehensive for the platform's purpose.
