aircall_update_tag

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already state. While destructiveHint=true is present, the description does not disclose effects like whether other fields are overwritten, whether updates are partial, or if confirmation is needed. It merely restates the action.

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, concise sentence with no fluff, making it easy to understand. However, it is minimal and could include a bit more context without becoming verbose, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 simple nature of the tool, complete schema, and annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks usage guidance and any note about how updates interact with existing data. It is enough to understand the core function but leaves some gaps.

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 provides full descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description carries no additional parameter meaning. This meets the baseline of 3; the description adds nothing 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 'Update an existing tag' clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (tag), with 'existing' distinguishing it from creation tools like create_tag. It is specific and unambiguous, differentiating it from sibling tools that handle tags.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing tag, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. There is no reference to create_tag/delete_tag or guidance on prerequisites, such as the tag already existing.

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