placetel_update_webex_user_numbersUpdates the numbers assigned to a Webex user by ID, letting you change or replace their number list through the Placetel Web API.
Update numbers for user. (PATCH /webex/users/{id}/numbers)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Path parameter id. | |
| numbers | No | Body field numbers. | |
| 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 tell the agent this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no destructive hint. The description adds little beyond the PATCH route and never answers the crucial behavioral question for an array update: are the supplied numbers replacing the existing set or being merged into it? That omission matters more than the safety profile that annotations already cover.
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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the structure is efficient. The terseness is a content problem rather than a verbosity problem, which is penalized on other dimensions.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and no return-value documentation, the description should at minimum explain the semantics of modifying the numbers collection. It leaves the agent unable to predict the effect of the call on existing numbers.
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 the schema documents id, numbers, and response_format without help. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — in particular, it doesn't explain how the numbers array is applied (replace vs. append) or what formats are expected.
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 verb (update) and resource (a Webex user's numbers) are named, but 'numbers' is ambiguous — it could mean phone numbers, DID assignments, or extensions — and the description never clarifies which. It also doesn't distinguish this from near siblings like placetel_get_webex_user_numbers or placetel_assign_webex_user_license.
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 statement of when this tool should be used, what precondition (existing Webex user, provisioned numbers) is required, or which sibling to choose for related tasks. The only usage signal is the raw HTTP route in parentheses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.