Create a SIP credential

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits: the plaintext password is returned exactly once (must be saved immediately), step-up MFA is required, and lists error types. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not contradict; instead, the description adds valuable 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 concise but includes essential information: purpose, prerequisite, password handling, MFA requirement, and error list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor improvement could be structuring errors with bullet points, but it is efficient overall.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, behavior, and errors, but does not specify what the response contains (e.g., credential ID) since there is no output schema. It mentions the password is returned once but lacks detail on the full response structure, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (trunk_id and username). The description adds minimal extra parameter information, only noting that trunk_id can be found with trunk_list. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Create a SIP Digest credential on an owned trunk', specifying the exact action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like trunk_delete_credential, trunk_list_credentials, trunk_update_credential, and trunk_rotate_credential.

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 provides clear prerequisites: the trunk's auth_type must be DIGEST, EITHER, or BOTH, and advises to check with trunk_get. It also lists possible errors, giving context for when the tool should or shouldn't be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different scenarios.

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