Transfer the remote party

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

The description discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it is a blind transfer, the agent's extension is released, the callId is preserved, and it documents required permission, precondition, and error outcomes. These details materially help the agent understand the operation's side effects.

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 dense and front-loaded, covering endpoint, permission, core behavior, preconditions, and error codes in a few efficient sentences. Every sentence adds operational value.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and nested target object, the description gives strong behavioral and error context. It does not describe the response body, but the invocation-critical information is otherwise well covered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It explains the target types (extension, queue, external number) but does not clarify the callId parameter beyond the endpoint path, leaving meaningful parameter semantics partly implicit.

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: blind-transfer the remote party to an extension, queue or external number. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling call tools such as make_call and hangup_call by focusing on transferring an established call.

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 specifies the key precondition that the call must be established, otherwise a 409 occurs, which tells the agent when the tool is applicable. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives like hangup_call or make_call, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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