Generate Vobiz call XML

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: XML-escaping of text, an approved-host requirement for callback/redirect URLs, rejection of actions after redirect/hangup, and the fact that non-host mode makes no API call. Return behavior (URL string vs raw XML) is only lightly covered.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then validation constraints, then the mode switch. Every clause carries information, though the middle sentence is run-on and slightly compresses several distinct rules together.

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 nested oneOf action schema with no output schema, the description covers action vocabulary, constraints, and the dual output mode well. It stops short of describing the returned XML/URL shape in detail, but the key invocation decisions are all supported.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it: it clarifies what host: true does (serve and return a URL), the allowed action vocabulary, and ordering constraints on the actions array that the schema does not express.

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 ('Build a validated Vobiz XML document') and enumerates the exact action types it accepts (speak, play, wait, gather, record, dial, redirect, hangup). It also positions itself against siblings by naming make_call answer_url and transfer_call aleg_url as the consumers of its output.

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?

Clearly distinguishes the two operating modes ('With host: true ... Pure generation otherwise') and explains where the produced URL is consumed. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or direct alternative comparison, but the mode split and downstream routing give an agent enough to choose correctly.

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