placetel_sync_microsoft_teams_userSynchronizes a Placetel SIP user with Microsoft Teams by sip_user_id to keep the Teams integration user record aligned.
Sync user. (PATCH /microsoft_teams/sync/{sip_user_id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sip_user_id | Yes | Path parameter sip_user_id. | |
| response_format | No | Output format: 'markdown' (human-readable, default) or 'json' (machine-readable). | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds nothing beyond the HTTP method and path: it does not say what state is changed, whether syncing can alter or overwrite existing Teams mappings, or what permissions are required.
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 definition is very short, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the title is repeated and the only additional information is the HTTP path. There is no useful front-loaded explanation of the operation's effect.
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?
For an open-world mutation in a Microsoft Teams integration, the description is too thin: it does not explain what sync means, what side effects occur, or how the result should be interpreted. Annotations and the schema cover some basics, but the core behavioral meaning is missing.
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 parameters are already documented structurally, and the description only echoes sip_user_id through the endpoint path. With full schema coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds no further meaning about the required identifier.
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?
"Sync user" is close to a restatement of the title and does not explain what syncing a Microsoft Teams user actually does. The endpoint path adds a hint that this targets the Microsoft Teams sync resource, but the definition never distinguishes the operation from siblings like import_microsoft_teams_user or disconnect_microsoft_teams_user.
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 gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. It does not tell an agent how to choose this over placetel_import_microsoft_teams_user, placetel_disconnect_microsoft_teams_user, or placetel_list_microsoft_teams_users.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.