bubblyphone-agents

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context that this configures an 'AI agent' (explaining the conceptual model), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or partial update semantics beyond what the schema and annotations imply.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no redundancy. The first states the core action, the second elaborates scope and use case. Every word earns its place; well front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 rich schema (100% coverage, 18 params) and comprehensive annotations, the description provides sufficient context by framing this as an AI agent configuration tool. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Could be improved by noting that only phone_number_id is required, enabling partial updates.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by grouping parameters into conceptual categories ('model, system prompt, voice, tools, webhook, and other settings' as AI agent configuration), helping the agent understand the purpose of the 18 parameters beyond the schema's flat list.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Update[s] phone number configuration' and clarifies this is specifically to 'set up or modify the AI agent.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like buy_phone_number (acquisition) and get_phone_number (retrieval) by focusing on configuration/modification of existing resources.

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?

Provides clear positive guidance ('Use this to set up or modify the AI agent') indicating when to invoke the tool. However, it lacks explicit negative guidance or named alternatives (e.g., 'do not use for purchasing numbers, use buy_phone_number instead').

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