Update a phone number you own. Currently sets the nickname — a short human-readable label (max 50 chars) shown next to the number. Send null/empty to clear it. Granted (shared) numbers cannot be updated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Phone number ID to update | |
| nickname | No | Short label, max 50 chars. null clears it. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| message | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide basic behavioral hints (not read-only, not destructive, idempotent). The description adds detail on clearing nickname with null/empty and the restriction on granted numbers, going beyond 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by key constraints. No wasted words.
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, well-annotated tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers operation, constraints, and edge case (null).
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 coverage is 100% and already describes parameters thoroughly (including max 50 chars and null clears). Description adds no new information beyond the schema, so baseline 3.
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 it updates a phone number's nickname, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling update tools by focusing on phone numbers and adding constraints for granted numbers.
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 explains when to use (set nickname) and when not (granted numbers cannot be updated). No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions clearly (e.g., create_assistant vs create_campaign). However, there is some overlap like get_outbound_assistants vs get_assistants and list_all_phone_numbers vs get_phone_numbers, causing minor ambiguity.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., create_document, delete_label, get_voices). Only minor deviations exist, such as generate_ai_reply and list_all_phone_numbers, but overall the pattern is maintained.
With 75 tools, the server is excessively large. Although the domain is broad (assistants, calls, messaging, etc.), the number of tools makes it difficult for agents to navigate and select the correct one, reducing coherence.
The tool set covers CRUD operations for most resources, plus webhooks, AI replies, and reference data fetching. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_conversation, no attach phone number to assistant), but the surface is largely comprehensive for the platform's purpose.
