hangup_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the action ('hang up') but does not reveal side effects such as irreversibility, required permissions, or what happens if the call is already hung up. For a mutating operation, this is a significant 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?

The description is succinct with two clear sentences, front-loading the purpose and briefly documenting the parameter. No unnecessary words, and the Args format is clear.

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 simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly adequate. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., error conditions, prerequisites) and absence of annotations reduce completeness. It would benefit from mentioning that the call must be active.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining that call_id is 'The UUID of the call to hang up.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's generic title 'Call Id', although it does not specify where to obtain the UUID.

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 'Hang up an active call' uses a clear verb and object, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_call or create_call. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage when an active call needs to be terminated, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites like whether the call must be owned by the user or in a certain state.

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