test_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it initiates a test call and the supported modes, but does not clarify what 'test' entails (e.g., simulation vs. actual call), side effects, or permissions required. Moderate transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then lists modes and gives a concrete use case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with 4 parameters (2 required, 1 enum) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, parameters, and usage context. It lacks mention of the return value or call outcome, but given the moderate complexity, it is mostly 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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by clarifying that version_id must be a published version, explaining the mode enum values in plain language, and noting that to_phone is required for telephony mode. This goes beyond the schema.

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 initiates a test call using a specific published version configuration, supporting multiple modes. It distinguishes from siblings like test_draft (which tests a draft) and make_call (which likely makes a live call).

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to test a non-active version before activating it (e.g. verifying a rollback candidate).' While it does not list when not to use or mention alternatives, the positive usage context is strong and clear.

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