Update a sip user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that, such as whether unspecified body fields are cleared, which fields are updatable, or permission requirements — notable gaps for a 17-parameter mutation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded and waste-free, but the extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined writing. The parenthetical endpoint is the only substantive addition.

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?

With 17 parameters, a write operation, and no output schema, the description should convey partial-update semantics, which fields matter, and what happens on success. None of that is present, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the schema alone.

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 documents all 17 parameters. The description's mention of PUT /sip_users/{id} confirms id is a path parameter, but it does not explain the semantics of the many body fields; baseline 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Update a sip user', plus the underlying endpoint PUT /sip_users/{id}. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as placetel_create_sip_user or placetel_get_sip_user beyond the verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus placetel_get_sip_user, placetel_create_sip_user, or placetel_delete_sip_user, and no prerequisites or conditions are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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