aircall_create_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a write operation that is not destructive. The description adds the optional callback URL behavior but does not disclose side effects such as whether an existing configuration is overwritten, whether the number must exist, or any authentication requirements. It provides some value beyond annotations but not rich behavioral context.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Create the messaging configuration'), and every part is relevant. There is no redundant information or filler, making it appropriately concise.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and optional parameter, but it does not mention return values, whether the operation is idempotent, or prerequisites like the number existing. Given the lack of an output schema, some additional context would improve completeness, but the current level is acceptable for a basic create operation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that callback_url is for incoming message events, but it does not elaborate on how number_id and callback_url interact or any constraints beyond what the schema already states. The added value is marginal.

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 the action (Create), the target resource (messaging configuration for an Aircall number), and an optional behavior (setting a callback URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aircall_get_config and aircall_delete_config by explicitly using 'create' and 'messaging configuration'.

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?

The description implies usage for setting up a number's messaging configuration, and the optional callback URL provides context. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., aircall_create_webhook) or any exclusions/prerequisites, so it only meets the 'implied usage' bar.

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