updatePostCallAction

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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: unsent fields retain their values, and the `type` field cannot change. It does not cover auth requirements or error behavior, but those are less central for this update operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the two most important behavioral constraints. No filler or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 very rich nested schema and the existing annotations, the description supplies the key update-specific semantics an agent needs. It is slightly thin on routing guidance relative to sibling tools, but the schema fills in parameter details thoroughly. No output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail. The description adds only a high-level note that fields not sent keep their value and that `type` cannot change, both of which are also present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Change fields of one post-call action.' It also clarifies partial-update semantics and an important immutability constraint on `type`. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as addPostCallAction or deletePostCallAction, so it stops short of perfect sibling differentiation.

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 says what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like addPostCallAction, deletePostCallAction, or listPostCallActions. The partial-update behavior is operational detail, not usage routing. An agent must infer from context that this is for modifying an existing post-call action.

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