calls_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates records, implying mutation, but fails to mention critical aspects like whether changes are reversible, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's action, making it highly concise and well-structured for its minimal content.

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 complexity (2 parameters with nested objects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter usage, behavioral traits, or return values, making it incomplete for effective tool invocation by an AI 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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about the 'callId' or 'properties' parameters, their formats, or the nested properties within 'properties'. It does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, falling short of the baseline.

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 resource ('an existing call record'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'calls_batch_update' or 'calls_create', which would require more specificity to reach a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'calls_batch_update' for multiple updates or 'calls_create' for new records. It also lacks prerequisites like required permissions or call existence, offering minimal usage context.

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