Send DTMF Digits

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description should add what they cannot: the description instead just repeats the HTTP method and path. It says nothing about auth requirements, what happens on an invalid MAC or inactive call, or what the response contains.

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 fragments with zero filler and the action front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. But it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized for a CTI mutation tool, which limits the value of the brevity.

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?

There is no output schema, and for a stateful CTI action the description omits whether a call must be in progress, how digits are interpreted, and what a successful response looks like. Given the operation's complexity, the definition leaves meaningful gaps.

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 100%, so mac, digits, and response_format are all documented in the schema itself, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no syntax detail (e.g., allowed DTMF characters, length) but does not need to for basic invocation.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Send DTMF Digits") plus the underlying HTTP path, which is more than a bare tautology. However, it gives no scope details and does nothing to distinguish it from the closely named sibling placetel_cti_dial_digit, leaving an agent to guess which digit-sending endpoint applies.

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 guidance on when to use this versus placetel_cti_dial_digit, on whether a call must already be active, or on any preconditions. The name only weakly implies context (sending tones mid-call), so the agent gets essentially no routing help.

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