Transferencia atendida — cancelar

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), and the description confirms the tool cancels a transfer and recovers the call, aligning with the annotations. However, no additional behavioral context is given (e.g., requirements, side effects on the other party).

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 that conveys the purpose concisely with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality adequately. It explains the action and result, though it omits explaining the parameter explicitly.

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?

The schema has one parameter (callId) with 0% description coverage. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description does not explicitly explain its role (e.g., 'callId of the ongoing transfer'). With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 verb 'cancela' (cancels) and the resource 'transferencia atendida' (attended transfer), and specifies the outcome 'recupera la llamada original' (recovers the original call). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbx_attended_transfer_start and pbx_attended_transfer_complete.

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 when an attended transfer is in progress and should be canceled, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbx_attended_transfer_complete or pbx_blind_transfer. No when-not guidance is provided.

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