iva_conference_participants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists many mutating actions (remove, disconect, cancel, stop) but does not state side effects, confirmation requirements, permissions, or response behavior. The names imply operations, but consequences of destructive actions are not disclosed 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 single front-loaded sentence that lists the main operation groups and ends with a useful API version context. It is concise, but the long comma-separared list reads more like an enumeration than an explanation, so it does not quite reach the top tier.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (23 actions, 15 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), a one-line list of operations is not fully complete on its own. The rich schema action descriptions compensate substantially, but missing behavioral context around destructive operations, authentication, and return values leaves an agent under-informed for correct invocation in edge cases.

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%, and parameter descriptions already document each field and action-specific requirements (e.g., add requires conferenceSessionId and participants). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline given full 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 clearly identifies the resource ('IVA conference participants') and enumerates the operation categories (add/remove/find/get/disconnect, mute/unmute, hand up/down, DTMF, reactions, etc.), so an agent can tell what the tool manages. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to distinguish against, but 'conference participants' is a reasonably specific resource 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?

The description implies participant-level conference operations belong in this tool, and the schema's action enum adds triggered-use hints such as 'Use when user says выключи микрофон' and 'raise hand'. However, the tool-level description gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions for neighboring conference tools.

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