update_tool

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

With no annotations, the description should compensate but only states 'updates an existing Vapi tool'. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, what permissions are needed, or any side effects.

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 a single sentence, making it concise. However, it is too terse and omits essential behavioral details, making it less helpful than it could be.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replacement) or error handling.

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%, so each parameter has a detailed description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already provided in the input schema.

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 verb 'updates' and the resource 'existing Vapi tool', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not specify which fields can be updated, relying on the schema for details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_tool or delete_tool. The description lacks any context about typical usage scenarios or prerequisites.

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