Create an external conference bridge

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds meaningful context beyond that by disclosing it 'may notify recipients or change tenant data' and requires operator write opt-in. No contradictions with the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the endpoint, field list, reference, and requirements each earn their place. The body-field enumeration is a slightly dense comma run-on but remains compact and directly useful.

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 destructive mutation with a nested body payload and no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, fields, prerequisites, and consequences, and provides a reference link. It doesn't describe the response format, but the supplied reference mitigates that gap.

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, but the description adds value beyond the schema by enumerating the concrete body fields (tollNumber, staticBridgeNumber, meetingLink, etc.) that the schema's generic 'Complete API JSON payload' leaves unspecified. This materially helps an agent construct the payload.

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 the exact action and resource ('Create an external conference bridge. POST /api/xm/1/conference-bridges') and enumerates the body fields. The verb+resource pairing clearly distinguishes it from siblings like xmatters_get_a_conference_bridge, xmatters_modify_a_conference_bridge, and xmatters_delete_a_conference_bridge.

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?

Provides clear context for when the tool applies (creating a new external bridge) and states a prerequisite ('Requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the action/resource pairing is unambiguous against the sibling list.

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