calls_end

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'End a call' without explaining whether it is destructive, if permissions are required, or what happens to participants. The description fails to add behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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?

While the description is very short (3 words), it is under-specified for a tool with two parameters and no annotations. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity; the description fails to provide necessary details.

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 the presence of an output schema and low parameter count, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how this tool fits among the many call-related siblings. A slightly longer description would greatly improve completeness.

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 0% and the tool description does not explain the meaning of the 'duration' parameter. The description adds no value beyond what the parameter names themselves suggest, leaving the agent uncertain about how to use the duration field.

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 'End a call' clearly states the action (End) and the resource (a call), distinguishing it from sibling tools like calls_add, calls_info, etc. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about when not to use it. The agent is left to assume any call can be ended without restrictions.

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