make_call

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so impressively. It discloses the call ringing behavior, repetition of the message, approximate duration of ~2 minutes, possible outcomes ('answered', 'no_answer', 'busy', 'declined'), and the critical implication that an unanswered call means the message was not delivered. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the primary action, then gives usage context, behavioral details, and outcome interpretation in a logical flow. Three sentences cover all essential aspects without redundancy or filler; every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 description is complete for a tool of this complexity. It covers purpose, when to use, how the call behaves, duration, possible results, and failure implications. Even though an output schema exists, the description also summarizes return statuses, making it self-contained and highly usable for an 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 baseline is 3. The description's mention that 'the synthesized message plays `repeat` times' adds only marginal reinforcement to what the schema already states about the repeat parameter. It does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Place a real Telegram voice call to the owner and speak the message aloud.' This clearly identifies the tool's function, and although no siblings are listed, the phrasing distinguishes it from messaging or notification tools by emphasizing a ringing voice call.

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?

It explicitly says when to use: 'when something is urgent enough to interrupt the owner... a critical incident, a failed deployment, anything they asked to be actively alerted about.' It also provides a fallback instruction: if the call is not answered, 'consider retrying later or falling back to a text message.' This is strong, actionable guidance.

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