Write an IVR phone-menu script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Builds' a script, suggesting a creation action, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or whether it modifies existing resources. Behavioral traits beyond the obvious script generation are absent.

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 two sentences: the first states the core action and components, the second lists language variants. It is front-loaded with no redundant words, earning a top conciseness score.

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 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the main outcome and parameter semantics well. It could be improved by mentioning that the output is a formatted script or that options are limited to 6 (already in schema), but overall it provides sufficient context for a complex tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining defaults ('industry's standard four' for options, 'Thank you for calling {business}' for greeting) and the 'both' language option with the press-nine switch. This context helps agents choose parameter values wisely.

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 'Builds a complete IVR script' with specific components: greeting, numbered options, optional Spanish switch, and operator line. This distinguishes it well from the sibling 'write_phone_script', which likely covers a broader set of phone scripts.

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 implies use for building an IVR menu with industry defaults but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'write_phone_script' or 'simulate_receptionist_call'. There is no guidance on when not to use it.

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