Update a SIP trunk (partial).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| sip_address | No | ||
| country_code | No | ||
| phone_number | No | ||
| sip_password | No | ||
| sip_username | No | ||
| outbound_proxy | No | ||
| sip_calling_format | No | ||
| allowed_inbound_ips | No | ||
| inbound_authorization_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| message | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'partial', which hints at idempotent update behavior, but does not explain that only specified fields are modified, what happens to unspecified fields, or whether the operation is reversible. Annotations provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description does not add context beyond the annotation details. Specifically, it does not clarify the 'openWorldHint' annotation meaning there may be side effects beyond the parameters.
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 sentence, which is concise, but it omits essential information for a tool with 10 parameters and no schema descriptions. It balances minimalism with adequacy only at a basic level, earning a middling score.
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 (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, enums, output schema available), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain which fields can be updated, parameter constraints, required fields beyond 'id', return values, or error conditions. The tool's annotations and context signals do not compensate for this lack of guidance.
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 description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not add any semantics for any of the 10 parameters (e.g., id, sip_address, country_code, etc.), leaving the agent with no guidance on parameter meaning, defaults, or constraints.
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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'SIP trunk', with the qualifier '(partial)' indicating it is a partial update (PATCH semantics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_sip_trunk, delete_sip_trunk, or get_sip_trunk.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_sip_trunk, get_sip_trunk, list_sip_trunks). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions under which this tool should be chosen over others.
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.
