calls_add

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

No annotations provided, and the description only says 'Register a new call', which implies creation but does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or constraints. For a creation tool, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no redundancy. However, it may be overly minimal, sacrificing helpful context for brevity.

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?

Despite full schema and output schema, the description lacks context about what 'register' entails, such as whether it creates a persistent record, if it triggers notifications, or what the return value represents. The brevity leaves ambiguity for a non-trivial action.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter's role. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specifies the verb 'Register' and the resource 'new call', clearly indicating the action and object. It distinguishes from siblings like calls_update and calls_end by implying creation vs modification or termination.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., calls_update, calls_participants_add). Given multiple call-related siblings, the lack of context for tool selection is a significant gap.

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