Update an agent

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world write. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not disclose PUT replacement semantics (why extension_sip/extension_pstn are mandatory and whether omitted fields are cleared) or any auth/rate-limit context, which is the key risk for an update operation.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the second sentence merely restates the HTTP endpoint already implied by the tool, so a portion of the already-minimal text does not add decision value.

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 a 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description says nothing about required fields, replacement vs. partial-update behavior, or what the call returns. Annotations cover safety, but an agent still lacks the operational context needed to invoke this correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the schema descriptions are generic labels like 'Body field name.' and the tool description supplies no additional meaning, formats, or constraints for the 9 parameters (e.g., priority range, extension formats).

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?

"Update an agent" names a verb and resource, but 'agent' is ambiguous in this catalog (call-center agent vs. SIP user or user records), and the title already carries the same meaning. The parenthetical endpoint maps it to call_center_agents, which is the only real disambiguation.

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 indication of when to use this rather than placetel_create_call_center_agent or placetel_update_sip_user, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and endpoint.

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