update_sales_agent_config

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the real-world impact of the settings (e.g., enabling starts responding, confidence threshold controls action threshold, reply limits cap sending). It also states that only passed fields are updated and that changes take effect immediately, providing clear behavioral expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear one-sentence purpose, then elaborating on implications and safety. It is concise without unnecessary repetition, uses effective formatting (e.g., capitalized warnings) to highlight key points, and maintains focus on essential 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 that the tool has 6 parameters with schema descriptions and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for typical use: partial update behavior, side effects, and authentication requirement. It does not detail error handling or specific validation rules, but these are not critical for basic usage and are not indicated as required.

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 schema already provides descriptions for each parameter, so the description does not repeat them. However, it adds important semantic nuance by stating 'only the fields you pass change', clarifying that all parameters are optional and the operation is a partial update. This is not explicit in the schema and enhances understanding.

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's purpose: changing the AI sales agent's settings, listing the specific settings (enable/disable, booking link, offer price, reply limits, confidence threshold). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_sales_agent_config' by indicating it modifies values rather than retrieves them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, such as 'Read the current config first' and 'only the fields you pass change', implying a read-before-write workflow. It does not explicitly mention alternatives but implies using the getter for reading. The warning about 'treat them as live' and 'safe to repeat' offers practical usage context.

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