Create a queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds nothing beyond that, though: no note on whether re-creating the same name errors or duplicates (non-idempotent is only implied by annotations), no side effects on existing routing/agents. The endpoint reference is the only value-add.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding and the endpoint front-loaded. Efficiency here comes at the cost of substance rather than through well-chosen compression — it is under-specified rather than crisp.

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?

A non-idempotent create tool with 16 parameters (only 'name' required), no output schema, and many interdependent prompt/ringing settings needs far more than one sentence: which fields are practically required for a working queue, interaction rules, and error behavior are all absent.

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?

Coverage is nominally 100%, but the schema descriptions are pure placeholders ('Body field priority.', 'Body field ringing_time.'), so the schema explains nothing about 15 optional business fields such as num_loops, max_iterations, or prompt_id. The description offers no compensating explanation of defaults, units, or relationships between prompt fields.

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 ('Create a queue') and the underlying endpoint (POST /call_center_queues), which disambiguates that this is the call-center queue resource rather than a generic queue. However, it does no explicit sibling differentiation from placetel_list_call_center_queues or placetel_update_call_center_queue, and the phrase is essentially the tool title restated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the list/update queue siblings, no prerequisites or permissions noted, and no mention of what state the account must be in. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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