addPostCallAction

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that existing actions are untouched by the add, and it explains the Idempotency-Key retry contract (same key and body returns the prior-added action, adding nothing new). It stops short of noting auth requirements or per-channel side effects.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the non-destructive scope, then the retry detail. Nothing is wasted; the trailing '(Tags: Agents)' is the only extraneous token.

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?

Annotations cover the mutation safety profile and the schema fully documents every field, so an agent has what it needs to call this correctly. There is no output schema, and the description only gestures at the return value via the idempotency sentence; a note on prerequisites (existing agent) would close the remaining gap.

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% and the schema already documents agent_id, the request body, and the Idempotency-Key header in depth, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the idempotency semantics but adds no format, constraint, or channel-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Add one post-call action to the agent' — and the qualifier 'one' clarifies it is a single-action operation, not a bulk one. It does not explicitly name the sibling updatePostCallAction or listPostCallActions, so sibling differentiation rests on the verb alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Add' versus the sibling 'update'/'delete' names make the intent inferable, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over updatePostCallAction, no prerequisite (the agent must exist), and no exclusions. The 'other actions are not changed' note hints at scope but is not usage guidance.

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