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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses important consequences: calls are refused without legal_name, connect_ai changes whether callers talk to the voice AI, and access is restricted to Owners. It does not describe response behavior, but an output schema exists.

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?

The description is three tight sentences, front-loads the purpose, and each sentence adds distinct information: the toggle action, the legal_name requirement, and the connect_ai behavior plus permission restriction.

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 configuration toggle with an output schema, the description covers the critical constraints and side effects: legal_name necessity, Owner-only access, and connect_ai behavior. It leaves shop_id and enabled implicit, which is a minor gap given their names.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It explains legal_name and connect_ai well, but does not explain shop_id or enabled, leaving gaps even though those names are relatively intuitive.

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 states a specific verb and resource: turning the shop's outbound AI calls on or off. It also distinguishes this tool from phone_setVoiceAi by explaining how connect_ai changes the call behavior, so an agent can tell the siblings apart.

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 clear operational context: legal_name is required and calls are refused without it, connect_ai controls live AI conversation, and the tool is Owner only. It does not explicitly enumerate when to choose other phone configuration siblings, but the usage conditions are clear.

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