iva_chat_call

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

With no annotations, the tool description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it does not mention that recording, transfer, leave, or outgoing-call actions change call state or may be irreversible. The only destructive-action hint appears in the confirm parameter description, not in the tool description.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence that communicates the full operation range plus a version tag. It is efficient and free of filler, though the dense semicolon list reads more like a catalog than a narrative.

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 tool with 16 actions, 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the high-level description is thin, and the schema does not specify which params are required per action. However, the detailed action enum and parameter descriptions cover much of the operational semantics, so the definition is minimally adequate with clear gaps.

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 description adds no parameter-level information, but schema description coverage is 100% and the action enum is richly explained. Nested-object descriptions such as callData: 'Start call data' are thin, yet the schema meets the high-coverage baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 names the resource (IVA chat calls) and enumerates the concrete operations: join/leave/hold, recording, screen sharing, transfer, DTMF, media state, and outgoing calls. This is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools but it is a catalog rather than a single verb-purpose statement, so not a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no contrast with alternatives such as iva_chat or iva_conference. The description simply lists operations, leaving the agent to infer when this tool should be selected.

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