create_sip_trunk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create' and repeats required parameters; it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, cost implications, or what kind of response the agent can expect.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the required-field note is directly relevant.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what happens upon successful creation, what the response contains, or any operational caveats, leaving the agent without important execution context.

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 schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating that password and caller_id_number are required, which is also already in the schema's required list.

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 names a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource ('SIP trunk'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_sip_trunk, delete_sip_trunk, and list_sip_trunks. It also names the two required fields, adding useful precision.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Create' — an agent can infer it is for creating a new SIP trunk rather than updating or deleting one. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over update_sip_trunk or any prerequisites beyond the required parameters.

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