Blind transfer

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

Annotations already disclose write/non-idempotent/open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond the endpoint. It doesn't say what happens to the caller on the far end after the transfer (e.g., whether the transferring leg is dropped), which is the key behavioral fact for a blind transfer.

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 short, but the single sentence is pure restatement of the title and URL; there is no additional content to front-load. Brevity here is under-specification rather than economy.

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 4-required-parameter telephony mutation with no output schema and many closelooking CTI siblings, the description leaves the agent without the operational context needed to choose and call it correctly.

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 all five parameters are documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself contributes no meaning about mac, line, call_id, or number beyond what the schema states.

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 is 'Blind transfer' plus the HTTP route, which merely restates the tool name and title. No verb nuance or scope is added, and it doesn't distinguish this from the sibling CTI tools placetel_cti_start_transfer and placetel_cti_complete_transfer, which are precisely the attended-transfer counterpart.

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 statement of when to use a blind transfer versus an attended transfer (start/complete transfer), nor any precondition such as an active call being required. The agent must infer all routing between sibling tools from their names alone.

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