Create Vapi Squad

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the handoff functionality but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Create'), error conditions, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds useful context about use cases without being redundant. It could be slightly more structured but efficiently conveys key information without waste.

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?

Given the complexity of creating a multi-assistant squad with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., mutation effects, permissions), response format, error handling, and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of structured metadata. For a creation tool in this context, more completeness is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (name and members). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format details for members beyond the example. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a squad of assistants') and the resource ('assistants that can hand off to each other on a call'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like vapi_create_assistant by specifying it's for multiple assistants working together, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with vapi_update_squad or vapi_get_squad.

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?

The description provides implied usage context ('Great for receptionist → qualifier → closer flows'), suggesting when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like vapi_create_assistant for single assistants or vapi_update_squad for modifications, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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