autotask_update_service_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it correctly indicates this is a mutation tool ('Update'), it lacks critical information such as required permissions, whether updates are reversible, error handling for invalid IDs, or what the response contains. The mention of 'complete: true' adds some context but doesn't compensate for the overall gap in behavioral details.

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 extremely concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides specific usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary 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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use the tool safely and effectively.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'status, times, or description' and the 'complete' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Update an existing service call') and identifies the resource ('service call'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like autotask_create_service_call and autotask_delete_service_call. It provides concrete examples of what can be changed ('status, times, or description'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Update an existing service call') and provides specific guidance for a common use case ('To complete/close a service call, set complete: true or update the status'). However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare it to alternatives like autotask_get_service_call for reading or autotask_delete_service_call for removal.

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