Create trunk origination URI

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the operation is gated by VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING, requires confirm: true, and the host must be public. It stops short of describing failure modes or what happens on duplicate URIs.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by priority semantics, attachment workflow, and gating preconditions in descending order of importance.

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 4-required-param mutation tool with 100% schema coverage, full annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, routing convention, attachment workflow, environment gate, and confirmation requirement. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes further by linking sip_uri and priority semantics to downstream behavior and explaining that the created URI is consumed via update_sip_trunk's primary_uri_uuid/fallback_uri_uuid fields. That cross-tool relationship is not visible in the schema, so it adds real value.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Add a SIP destination (origination URI)') with an example value and the business purpose (outbound call routing for Vobiz trunks). This clearly separates it from list_origination_uris, update_origination_uri, and delete_origination_uri in the sibling set.

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 usage guidance: priority 1 for primary and 2+ for failover, plus the follow-up step of attaching via update_sip_trunk (primary_uri_uuid or fallback_uri_uuid). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name a competing tool to prefer, so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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