Update a trunk endpoint

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

Discloses HTTP 207 with a warning when Kamailio sync is deferred, and lists six specific error codes. This adds behavioral context beyond annotations (which indicate idempotent and non-destructive mutation). No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by prerequisite, MFA requirement, and error listing. No wasted words.

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?

Covers all essential aspects: operation, parameter distinction, prerequisite, security, asynchronous behavior (deferred sync), and errors. No output schema is needed for this update tool.

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 100%, but the description adds value by grouping parameters into structured vs raw_uri and hinting at mutual exclusivity. It also briefly explains the purpose of weight, priority, and enabled, though the schema already covers these.

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 action (Update), the resource (a dispatcher endpoint on an owned trunk), and specifies the two forms (structured host/port/transport fields or raw_uri), distinguishing it from sibling tools like trunk_create_endpoint or trunk_delete_endpoint.

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 explicit prerequisite (use trunk_list_endpoints to find endpoint_id) and a security requirement (Step-up MFA). Mentions the structured vs raw_uri alternative but does not explicitly compare to other sibling tools or give exclusion criteria.

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