Click-to-call hacia una cola

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

The description adds the warning 'Real call', consistent with openWorldHint=true. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or what happens to the caller after queueing. Annotations already indicate it's not read-only and not destructive, but the description minimally extends transparency.

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 very short and to the point, consisting of one sentence and a warning. It is concise but could benefit from more detail on parameters without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no param descriptions), the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Key details about optional parameters and return behavior are missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, the description only implicitly covers 'to' and 'queueNumber'. It does not explain the purpose of outboundId, maxWaitingCallers, forcedCallerIdNumber, leaving the agent unable to use optional parameters correctly.

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 'calls' and resource 'to' and the action 'queues it in the indicated queue'. It differentiates from siblings like pbx_click_to_call_external and pbx_click_to_call_inverse_queue by specifically targeting queue operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not to use, or compare with similar tools like pbx_click_to_call_external.

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