importSipTrunk

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context on top of that - no mention of auth/permissions, whether the number must be verified, or what state change occurs on import. It essentially restates the verb already in the name.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carrying the core action, plus a short tag line. Nothing is padded, though the tag '(Tags: Phone numbers)' is metadata rather than instruction and the sentence is arguably too terse for the underlying complexity.

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?

This is a mutation tool wrapping a 10-property nested object with no output schema, yet the description says only that it imports a number. It omits anything about prerequisites, side effects, or how the import relates to the attach/detach and other provider-import siblings, which is not sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 nested requestBody and all ten fields (sip_host, sip_port, phone_number, sip_trunk_name, sip_strip_country_code, etc.) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (Import) and resource (a phone number associated with a SIP trunk), which is enough to separate it from generic number tools like purchasePhoneNumber or searchPhoneNumbers. However, it never differentiates itself from the near-identical siblings importTwilioNumber and importExotelNumber, so the agent must infer the distinction from the name 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. Given that importTwilioNumber, importExotelNumber, attachPhoneNumber and purchasePhoneNumber all exist as competing ways to get a number onto the account, the description should route the agent but does not.

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