retell_create_llm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the create operation and lists fields; it does not mention whether the created config is immediately usable, what response is returned, or any side effects/permissions needed.

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 a single, well-ordered sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and lists the main fields. It contains no filler.

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?

The schema fully documents parameters and the description conveys the core purpose, but with no annotations or output schema the description leaves out return behavior and usage context. It is adequate but not rich enough for a tool in a large sibling set.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely maps 'system prompt, model, begin message, and tools' to schema properties but omits knowledge_base_ids and adds no meaning beyond the schema's per-property 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Retell LLM configuration') and adds the purpose 'to attach to agents.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like retell_create_agent and retell_create_chat_agent, which create different resource types.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, such as using retell_update_llm for an existing configuration or creating an agent afterward. The only contextual hint is 'to attach to agents,' which implies but does not specify workflow.

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