iva_conference_templates

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation names already in the schema enum. It does not mention side effects of setting a default, confirmation requirements for deletes, permission needs, or whether changes are reversible. The destructive 'delete' action is visible in the schema, so the description adds no new behavioral context.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and operation set, making it scannable. The trailing 'Clients API v2.28.12' is low-value but not harmful, and the core content has no wasted words.

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?

The schema richly documents parameters and enumerates actions, but the description omits action-to-parameter relationships (e.g., create/update need templateData, get/delete need conferenceTemplateId) and gives no info about return values. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but leaves some contextual work to the agent.

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 parameter details are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters such as templateData or conferenceTemplateId, but it also does not need to repeat them. Baseline 3 is appropriate because structured data already does the heavy lifting.

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 exact resource ('IVA conference templates') and enumerates all six operations: list/create/get/delete/update and set as default. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling conference tools, which focus on sessions, media, chat, or participants rather than template management.

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 makes the tool's scope explicit by listing the full set of supported template operations, so an agent can infer that any conference-template management task belongs here. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give exclusionary guidance, but the resource name and action list provide clear context.

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