createCall

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'Log a call' and hints at expected fields. Missing details on side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

Extremely concise (one sentence). No wasted words, but the structure could be improved (e.g., separate purpose from API quirks). However, it's efficient for a simple tool.

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?

Lacks output schema and annotations. With 9 parameters and a creation operation, the description fails to explain return value, success indicators, or error conditions. Additional context (e.g., what happens after logging) would be valuable.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter descriptions (e.g., 'true = inbound, false = outbound'). The description adds only 'FUB expects isIncoming (boolean) and note (singular),' which is redundant and potentially misleading since note is not required. Schema does the heavy lifting, so baseline 3.

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?

Description states 'Log a call for a person,' which clearly indicates the verb (log/create) and resource (call). It distinguishes from siblings like listCalls, getCall, updateCall. However, the mention of 'FUB expects isIncoming (boolean) and note (singular)' slightly muddies the primary action, so not a perfect 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., createNote, createTextMessage). No context about prerequisites or exclusions. The description is purely declarative without usage advice.

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