hangup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the action name ('Hang up a call') and provides parameter info, but does not mention side effects, termination semantics, errors, or any state requirements.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. However, the Returns line ('Dict[str, Any]: Response data') is generic and adds minimal value, preventing a perfect 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?

The tool is a stateful action (hanging up a call) but the description lacks essential context such as prerequisites (active call), failure conditions, side effects, or how it relates to sibling call-control tools. The absence of an output schema and annotations makes this gap notable.

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 only defines a generic 'request' object with no properties, giving 0% coverage. The description partially compensates by naming call_control_id as required, but it does not specify its type or where it fits within the 'request' object, leaving ambiguity.

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 'Hang up a call' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like make_call and transfer. The Args and Returns sections reinforce the operation's scope.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites like an active call or when transfer would be more appropriate. The description merely states the action without contextual instructions.

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