bubblyphone-agents

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

While annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, the description adds no behavioral context about what destruction entails (original call termination), transfer type (blind vs attended), or open-world implications for external numbers.

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?

Single 7-word sentence with zero redundancy; action verb leads immediately and every word serves the definition.

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?

Adequate for a 2-parameter tool with full schema documentation, but insufficient for a destructive operation lacking output schema; omits success/failure semantics, original call disposition, and openWorldHint implications.

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 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'call_id' and E.164 format for 'to'. The description adds no parameter syntax, examples, or validation rules beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('Transfer') with clear resource ('active call') and target ('another phone number'), unambiguously distinguishing it from siblings like make_call (new calls) or hangup_call (terminating calls).

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 phrase 'active call' implicitly signals prerequisite state (the call must be in-progress), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, alternatives for inactive calls, or warnings about transfer failure scenarios.

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