Create a trunk endpoint

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: returns HTTP 207 with a warning when Kamailio sync is deferred, and lists specific error codes. This goes beyond the annotations, though it could mention side effects (e.g., modification of trunk state).

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 concise (a few sentences) and front-loaded with the action. It includes key conditions (MFA, sync deferral, errors) without unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers return status (207), error cases, and a usage requirement (MFA). It does not explain the format of responses on success, but as a creation tool, the primary concern is side effects and errors, which are addressed.

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 100% coverage of parameters. The description adds value by explicitly noting the mutual exclusivity of host/port/transport and raw_uri, which is not stated in the schema. This helps agents avoid invalid combinations.

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 action ('Add a dispatcher endpoint to an owned trunk') and the resource (trunk), and it distinguishes between two input forms (structured host/port/transport vs raw_uri), making it distinct from sibling tools like trunk_create or trunk_create_credential.

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 mentions 'Step-up MFA required' and lists possible errors (e.g., NO_ACTIVE_CUSTOMER, INVALID_ID), which guide when the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like trunk_update_endpoint for updates or trunk_create for trunk creation.

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