update_whatsapp_number_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by reinforcing the non-destructive boundary ('does not connect, reassign or remove numbers, and never touches Meta credentials') and by spelling out merge semantics for a nested settings object. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or when changes take effect, so not a 5.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then partial-update contract, then field hints, then exclusions and the sibling pointer. No restatement of the tool name or filler.

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 nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description supplies scope, merge behaviour, exclusions and routing to the sibling, which covers what an agent needs to call it safely. Remaining gaps are the undocumented applyAiReplyRuleDuringHumanChatting flag and any statement about the response or effect timing.

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 coverage is 67% and the nested sub-fields are documented inline, so the baseline is mid-range. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining the origin of phoneId, the operational meaning of aiPaused, and that coexistenceSettings is only for numbers shared with the WhatsApp Business app. The gap is applyAiReplyRuleDuringHumanChatting, which is undocumented in both the schema and 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?

States a specific verb (change), resource (AI behaviour of ONE WhatsApp number assigned to a Convocore agent), and scope (single number, not the org). It explicitly separates itself from update_whatsapp_ai_rules, which handles reply conditions, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit lookup path for the key parameter (get phoneId from get_whatsapp_ai_rules), states the partial-update contract (send only fields to change), names the two specific use cases (aiPaused to stop/resume, coexistenceSettings for shared numbers), and lists exclusions plus the alternative tool for reply conditions.

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