iva_conference_inquiry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It names many mutating/destructive actions (delete, stop, update, answer) but does not disclose side effects, confirmation requirements, permissions, or operation-specific behavior; the confirm behavior is only mentioned in the schema, not in the 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 a compact single sentence that front-loads the resource and lists operations efficiently. The trailing 'Clients API v2.28.12' is marginally useful version context but not central to invocation.

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?

This is a high-complexity facade with 11 parameters, nested objects, many enum actions, and no output schema; the description does not explain how the action parameter dispatches behavior, what each operation returns, or how conferenceSessionId relates to it. An agent would need the schema and further inference to call it correctly.

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 schema already explains all 11 parameters, including action enums and UUID meanings. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which matches the baseline for high schema 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 identifies a specific resource ('IVA conference inquiries (polls)') and enumerates precise operations (create, find, get, delete, update, start/stop, answers, export), so an agent can see what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with closely related siblings such as iva_conference_questionnaire, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives no guidance about when to call this tool instead of a sibling or which action to choose for a given intent. It merely lists capabilities; no when/when-not or alternative conditions are stated.

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