update_driver_response

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the key side effect (driver score update) and the return value with possible enumeration values. It also clarifies that this is a record operation on a call response. It does not delve into failure modes or idempotency, but the disclosed behavior is directly relevant.

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 sentences, no filler, relevant information front-loaded. Every word 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?

The tool has a simple purpose, 6 required parameters, and no output schema. The description explains the return value sufficiently ('next_action' with enumerated values). It doesn't cover edge cases like duplicate responses, but for a straightforward record tool, it's reasonably complete.

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 documents all 6 parameters with descriptions and enums (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 function with a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('a driver's response to a booking call'), and also notes the side effect (updates driver score) and return value (next_action). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_driver_details or timeout_driver_attempt by focusing on recording responses to calls.

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?

It implies usage when a driver responds to a booking call, and the return value guides next steps (RIDE_STARTED or GET_NEXT_DRIVER). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like timeout_driver_attempt, despite the sibling tool existing.

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