Create SIP trunk

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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/open-world, so the bar is lowered, and the description adds real context beyond them: an environment-flag gate and a mandatory confirmation precondition, plus the auth-model choice (credential vs IP ACL). It does not explain consequences of the destructiveHint (e.g. what provisioning changes), leaving a small gap.

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, front-loaded with the operation and endpoint, then preconditions, then the gate. Every clause carries information that is not repeated elsewhere.

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 19-parameter create tool the description covers the decision-critical pieces — validation gate, confirm requirement, auth wiring, failover ordering — and with no output schema it does not need to describe returns. It is somewhat under-specified for the many optional configuration parameters the agent may need to populate on a real provisioning call.

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 only 16% across 19 params, so the description must compensate; it explains the two auth options (credential_uuid and/or ipacl_uuid), the routing pair (primary_uri_uuid with fallback_uri_uuid as failover) and the confirm gate, adding role semantics the bare schema lacks. The remaining majority of params (transport, secure, cps_limit, trunk_direction, recording, inbound_destination, etc.) get no explanation in either place.

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+resource and even names the underlying endpoint (POST /trunks), which pins down the operation unambiguously among create_* siblings like create_sip_endpoint and create_trunk_credential. It does not explicitly contrast itself with update_sip_trunk, but the resource/verb pair is distinctive enough that an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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 — supply credential_uuid and/or ipacl_uuid, and set confirm: true behind VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING — which tell the agent when the call will succeed. It stops short of stating when to use this tool versus create_sip_endpoint or create_trunk_credential, so routing among provisioning siblings is left to inference.

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