aircall_update_email

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether it replaces the existing email entirely, effect on linked records, or reversibility). It does not contradict the annotations, but adds minimal value 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?

A single concise sentence that immediately states the action and target. No wasted words, front-loaded with the verb. It is efficient and fully digestible, fitting the simplicity of the tool.

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 simplicity, 100% parameter coverage, and existing annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the operation returns (e.g., the updated email object, success status) or any side effects beyond 'update', which is a minor gap for a mutation tool.

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% description coverage for all four parameters (label, value, email_id, contact_id), each with clear descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it does not compensate beyond the schema's 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 'Update an email address on a contact' uses a specific verb ('Update') and names the exact resource ('an email address on a contact'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like aircall_add_email and aircall_delete_email by implying an existing email is modified.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Usage is implied by the verb 'Update' in contrast to sibling tools like add/delete, but there is no statement about prerequisites, when to prefer this over aircall_update_contact, or when not to use it.

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