Create trunk credential

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

Annotations already flag this as non-idempotent, open-world and destructive, and the description adds materially beyond them: the username is permanent, the password is write-only and never returned, and the call is gated by VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING plus confirm: true. These are exactly the irreversible/secret-handling facts an agent needs before invoking a destructive write.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the follow-up step, then the irreversibility and gating constraints. No filler or repetition of the title.

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-required-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it creates, the required approval gate, the permanence of the username, and the fact that the password is never returned (so nothing is expected back in the response).

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% and the schema already documents all three parameters including the SECRET warning on password and the permanence of username. The description restates permanence and write-once behavior but adds no syntax, format or constraint detail 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 and resource ('Create a SIP digest credential ... on this Vobiz account for trunk authentication') and immediately scopes its purpose to dynamic-IP PBXs, remote sites or voice agents, which cleanly separates it from list/update/delete_trunk_credential siblings.

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 the follow-up workflow explicitly ('Attach it to a trunk afterwards with update_sip_trunk (credential_uuid)') and implies the use case boundary by scoping to dynamic-IP rather than static-IP alternatives. It never states an explicit 'do not use this when...' exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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