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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context: voice, model, and transcriber are replaced as whole objects, and the confirmation step is mandatory. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral nuance beyond them.

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 two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core action, then immediately provides the critical behavioral detail. Every clause adds value.

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 complexity (14 params, nested objects, output schema), the description covers the essential gotchas: whole-object replacement, fetch-before-update, and confirmation. It doesn't explain every field, but the output schema and existing param descriptions handle most details. The description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With only 14% schema description coverage, the description compensates for the most complex parameters (voice, model, transcriber) by explaining the replace semantics and how to handle them. However, it does not touch on other parameters like name, description, or booleans, which are self-explanatory but not explicitly clarified. It partially offsets the low coverage.

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 the action 'Update an outbound assistant' and the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like create, delete, or get. It also adds the specific nuance about replacing voice, model, and transcriber as whole objects, which is unique to this tool.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on the required workflow: fetch current config with get_outbound_assistant, apply edits, and confirm. It also implies the use case of updating an existing assistant, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with create_outbound_assistant. The confirmation requirement is clearly stated.

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