answer_mid_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mid-call handoff nature and the instruction not to invent the answer or token. However, it does not mention any side effects, return behavior, or whether the call ends after this, but it is generally transparent for a relay tool.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does and when, the second explains the workflow and a critical warning. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, parameter meaning, and behavioral constraints. An output schema exists, so return values are already structured. Sibling context is not needed for completeness.

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 coverage is 0% and the input schema provides no descriptions for 'answer_token' or 'answer'. The description compensates by defining the token as coming from call_place/approve_call and the answer as the human's response. It doesn't specify formats or constraints, but gives enough context to understand both parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Relay the human's answer to a mid-call venue question.' It uses a specific verb ('relay') and resource ('human's answer'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the call_place/approve_call status and the mid-call handoff.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: 'When call_place/approve_call returns status=awaiting_mid_call_answer.' It provides a clear sequence of actions (show question to human, then call with token and answer) and even warns against inventing the answer or token. This is excellent usage guidance.

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