aircall_update_messages

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the mutation safety profile. The description adds that URLs are required for audio files, but doesn't clarify partial vs. full update behavior or side effects on omitted fields.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the action, resource, and key instruction. 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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It doesn't explain whether updates are incremental or full replacements, or how to handle optional parameters. Annotations cover destructiveness, but the update semantics remain ambiguous for an 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with every parameter described as a URL type. The description reinforces this by stating 'Provide URLs to audio files' and listing example messages, but adds little beyond the schema.

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 tool updates audio messages and music for a phone number, using a specific verb and resource. It lists examples (welcome, waiting, voicemail) and distinguishes this tool from siblings like aircall_update_number or aircall_delete_voicemail.

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 gives clear context: when you need to update audio messages/music for a phone number, you provide URLs. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no direct sibling tool overlaps, so the usage scenario is evident.

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