Add trunk IP ACL entry

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the write/high-impact nature is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: an environment-flag gate (VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING) and the required confirm: true, plus the security effect of removing digest-credential needs. It stops short of describing duplicate handling or response shape.

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?

Three dense sentences with the purpose front-loaded, then the linkage instruction, then the gating prerequisites. No filler, though the confirm/gate sentences could be tightened.

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 3-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, linkage, and gating prerequisites adequately. It omits what happens on duplicates or the returned identifier (schema hints name is returned as `description`), which an agent might want, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 name/ip_address/confirm are already documented in the schema (including the CIDR format and the name→description mapping). The description's example addresses add little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (allow-list) plus resource (public IPv4/CIDR for trunk ACL) and explains the concrete outcome: PBX/SBC/carrier trunks usable without digest credentials. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_ip_acl_entry, delete_ip_acl_entry and list_ip_acl_entries.

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?

Gives clear operating context: use it to attach an IP to a trunk via update_sip_trunk (ipacl_uuid), and notes it is gated by VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING and confirm: true. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g. reusing an existing entry vs. create), but the usage path is unambiguous.

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