adb_end_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing what happens if no call is active, whether the call is ended immediately, if any confirmation is needed, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, short, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It does not cover edge cases like having no active call, whether the tool is idempotent, or what the behavior is with or without a deviceId. Richer disclosure is needed for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for deviceId, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about how deviceId affects behavior, but the schema already documents it adequately.

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 'End the current phone call' uses a specific verb (end) and resource (current phone call), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like adb_make_call, adb_dial_number, and adb_answer_call. It leaves no ambiguity about what action this tool performs.

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?

While the description does not explicitly state when to use the tool or mention alternatives, the action is self-explanatory: it is for ending an ongoing call. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it when the goal is to hang up the current call, though it lacks explicit conditions or exclusions.

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