aircall_update_number

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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds minimal behavioral context—it doesn't clarify whether the update is partial or a full replacement, or if it affects call routing. No contradiction exists, but the description relies entirely on annotations for safety-critical information.

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 sentence that directly states the action and subject with a clear verb and resource. No unnecessary words, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 update tool with a well-documented schema and annotations, the description is adequate but has clear gaps: it lacks usage context and details about mutation semantics (e.g., partial vs. full update). The destructiveHint annotation raises the importance of clarifying behavior, which the description does not do.

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% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions three parameters (name, timezone, priority) but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; number_id is not mentioned in the description.

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 a phone number's configuration, with examples of specific fields (name, timezone, priority). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool aircall_update_phone, so while the purpose is clear, sibling differentiation is missing.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aircall_update_phone or aircall_get_number. The intended usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated, and there are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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