conduyt_create_ring_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well to surface the non-obvious INACTIVE-on-missing-memberIds outcome and the fact that memberless groups never ring, but that same fact is already documented in the memberIds schema description. It says nothing about permissions, number-uniqueness conflicts, or what is returned on success.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the critical lifecycle gotcha is front-loaded right after the purpose statement. Nothing repeats the name or title.

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?

For a six-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and one important side effect but omits what a successful call returns (e.g. a ring group id) and any precondition about the phone number or account context. Adequate minimum, but clear gaps remain.

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 documents all six parameters including the required E.164 phoneNumber and the 5-120 ringSeconds range. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the memberIds omission case, which is stated verbatim in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a ring group') and scopes it to 'on an account number'. The verb plus the conduyt_ prefix makes it distinguishable from the sibling conduyt_update_ring_group, conduyt_get_ring_group and conduyt_list_ring_groups. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from those siblings in the text.

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 statement of when to use this versus conduyt_update_ring_group or conduyt_create_call_flow, and no prerequisites such as permission requirements or whether the phone number must be unassigned. The only implicit guidance is the memberIds caveat, which is a behavior rather than a routing rule.

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