conduyt_wire_call_flow_number

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: this is a mutation equivalent to publish's wiring step, requires Admin, and returns the resulting wiring state. It does not discuss idempotency, reversibility, or failure modes, but it provides meaningful context beyond the bare action.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by operational guidance. Every clause contributes: the equivalence to publish, the error condition, the admin requirement, and the return value.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, permission level, and a high-level return value. It leaves the exact shape of the 'wiring state' unspecified, but the core information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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 single id parameter is already documented as a Call flow UUID. The description adds context that the flow's number is being wired, but it does not add syntax or selection guidance beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: point the call flow number's Twilio voice webhook at Conduyt. It also distinguishes this from the sibling publish_call_flow by explaining that this is the same step publish performs, so an agent can understand exactly what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit triggering conditions: use when publish reported wiring.error, or after changing the number in Twilio. It also relates the tool to publish_call_flow, which helps the agent choose between targeted rewiring and a full publish, though it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool.

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