Create short code

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write with open-world effects, so the bar is lower — but the description adds nothing beyond the route string. It does not say whether creating a duplicate code fails or overwrites, whether the change is live immediately, or what permissions the caller needs. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

It is brief and the operation name is front-loaded, so there is no padding to trim. However, brevity here comes from under-specification rather than discipline — only the endpoint path is appended, and the whole definition is two fragments.

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 7-parameter create operation with two enums, conditional fields (`number` for `set_forward`/`set_out_number`, `group_id` for `login_group`) and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing at field interdependencies and return value. Annotations cover the safety profile but not the semantics the agent needs to construct a valid call.

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 every parameter including the `action` enum and `response_format` is already documented in the schema; per the high-coverage baseline this floors at 3. The description contributes no additional meaning, such as how `number`, `group_id`, and `description` relate to specific `action` values.

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?

"Create short code" restates the tool title and name almost verbatim, with no elaboration on what a short code is or how it binds to the SIP user identified by `id`. The parenthetical HTTP route hints at the resource nesting, but an agent still cannot tell what the operation actually produces or why a short code differs from a routing entry.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a SIP user must already exist), and no reference to the sibling `placetel_list_sip_user_short_codes` or `placetel_delete_sip_user_short_code`. The agent gets no signal about when this creation tool is the right choice versus configuring forwardings via `placetel_update_sip_user` or routings.

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