Create voice application

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that - feature-flag gating via VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING, the approved-host URL constraint, and the explicit confirm gate - but does not explain the side effects implied by destructiveHint (e.g., what provisioning actually creates or whether it can be rolled back).

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and required fields, then the host constraint, then the gating rules. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 10-parameter, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the description leaves most parameter semantics undocumented and never describes what the created application looks like or what is returned. The gating and host constraints are valuable but not enough to make the definition self-sufficient.

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 only 10%, with just 'confirm' documented, so the description carries the burden for the other nine parameters. It restates the two required fields (already in the schema's required array) and adds the approved-host rule for URLs, but leaves hangup_url, the three *_method enums, fallback_answer_url, and both default_*_app booleans completely unexplained.

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 and resource ('Create a Vobiz application') and names the two required fields, which cleanly separates it from get_application, update_application, and delete_application in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from those siblings, but the create semantics are unambiguous.

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 concrete preconditions for invocation: the VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING flag must be enabled and confirm: true is required, and the description also states the approved-host constraint on URLs. What is missing is any statement of when to prefer update_application over a new create, or exclusions for cases where creation should not be attempted.

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