test_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that the call is a test and uses a draft configuration, but does not disclose whether it's read-only or has side effects (e.g., cost, logging). The description is adequate but lacks depth on behavior beyond the basic 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?

The description is only two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and modes, then adds usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., call ID, status). It does not. However, it covers purpose, modes, and use case. For a test tool with 4 parameters, it is adequate but could be more complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds 'Supports webcall, chat, and telephony modes,' which echoes the schema's enum but provides no additional semantic meaning beyond what is already in the parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: initiate a test call using a draft's configuration before publishing. It specifies supported modes (webcall, chat, telephony) and distinguishes from siblings like 'make_call' which is for live calls.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this to verify draft changes work correctly before making them live,' providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare directly with siblings like 'test_version' or 'debug_call', though the context is clear enough.

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