End every live conference

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

Although annotations already mark the tool destructive and idempotent, the description adds the concrete consequence: all members of all rooms are disconnected at once. It also discloses the confirmation protocol, which is important behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the action and scope, then immediately provides the alternative and confirmation requirement. Every clause adds useful selection or safety information with no wasted text.

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 destructive account-wide bulk operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description supplies scope, consequence, alternative routing, and confirmation requirements. An agent has enough information to decide when and how to call it safely.

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 the single `confirm` parameter is already fully documented by the schema. The description reinforces the `confirm: true` requirement but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: "Hang up EVERY running conference room on this Vobiz account at once," and states the scope as account-wide. It also explicitly distinguishes this from the sibling tool `end_conference`, which handles a single room.

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?

It states the intended use precisely: "only for account-wide cleanup or maintenance," and names the alternative for closing one room. The confirmation requirement is tied to explicit user agreement, giving clear invocation conditions.

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