make_bulk_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Make bulk phone calls' implies a write/mutation operation that initiates multiple calls, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is asynchronous, what permissions are required, rate limits, cost implications, error handling, or what constitutes 'bulk' (minimum/maximum calls). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just three words. While this could be seen as under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of completeness, which is reflected in other dimension scores.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'bulk' means operationally, doesn't describe the expected outcome or return values, and doesn't provide context about how this differs from 'make_call'. Given the complexity implied by 'bulk' operations and the lack of structured documentation elsewhere, the description should do more to help an agent understand when and how to use this tool correctly.

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 100%, with both parameters ('assistant_id' and 'contact_bulk_id') having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already documented in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Make bulk phone calls' states a clear verb ('Make') and resource ('bulk phone calls'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'make_call' - the 'bulk' modifier is mentioned but not explained in terms of how it differs operationally from the non-bulk version. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what 'bulk' entails.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'make_call'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With a sibling tool named 'make_call' that appears to handle individual calls, the absence of comparative guidance is a significant gap that could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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