End Active Call

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. While it mentions the tool is 'force-end' and for 'stuck' calls, it doesn't specify whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether it's reversible, or what happens to call data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage context. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 destructive operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and usage context but lacks important behavioral details about side effects, error conditions, or what constitutes success. Given the complexity of force-ending calls, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'callId' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation when 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 specific action ('Force-end') and resource ('an active Vapi call'), distinguishing it from siblings like vapi_get_call or vapi_list_calls. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('if a call gets stuck or needs to be terminated from a workflow'), which helps differentiate it from normal call completion scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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