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 this is an update operation but doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to unspecified properties. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity comes at the cost of detail.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the update behavior, return values, error cases, or how it differs from batch operations. For a tool that modifies data with rich input structure, more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'update an existing call record' but provides no details on what 'callId' or 'properties' entail, what fields can be updated, or the meaning of nested properties like 'hs_call_direction'. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 call record' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (call record), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'calls_batch_update' or 'calls_update' vs 'calls_create', leaving the scope ambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calls_batch_update' for multiple updates, 'calls_create' for new records, or 'calls_get' for reading. The description implies usage for updating existing calls but offers no context on prerequisites, limitations, or best practices.

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