Call and run an IVR app

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

Annotations already flag openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the description's added value is the validation rule (undeployed app names are rejected) and the return value ("Returns a request ID") despite no output schema. It still doesn't spell out the real-world consequences of a live outbound call or what destructiveHint actually covers (records, charges), which keeps it below a 5.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, the refusal condition, the follow-up tool, and the return value. The action is front-loaded with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the call's real-world effect, failure mode, follow-up path, and return value, and the schema fully documents all five parameters. Only the concrete consequences of the destructive hint remain unstated, which is a modest gap.

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 every parameter — phone, app_name, caller_id, keep_record, schedule_minutes — is already documented in the schema, including caller_id setup and record deletion behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

"Place a real phone call that runs an outbound app deployed from Voicent IVR Studio" gives a concrete verb (place a call) and resource (deployed outbound IVR app), and names call_status as the separate read-side sibling, so an agent can tell the two apart without inspecting 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?

It states the post-call workflow ("Check call_status for the callee's responses") and a precondition ("Refuses a name that isn't deployed"), which tells the agent when this tool will fail and what to do next. It stops short of naming when to prefer alternatives such as send_sms or call_text for non-IVR outreach.

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