Update Call Log

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the mutating nature is disclosed by structured data. The description adds value by stating the output is a 'compact call log summary with duration in seconds' and that at least one field must be updated, which informs expected behavior and potential error conditions.

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 four sentences, tightly written, with the core purpose in the first sentence and supporting details in the following sentences. No redundant or vague wording exists.

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 tool with 18 parameters and an output schema, the description provides a workable overview: it states the operation, required fields, key validation, and output format. It doesn't enumerate every parameter, but the schema already does that, so this is sufficient.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds useful cross-references: explaining that call type IDs can be resolved via list_call_types, user IDs via list_users, and that related_to_type must be one of three values. It also clarifies the requirement of at least one update field beyond the two required parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Updates' with a clear resource ('one existing Recruit CRM call log') and identifies the key identifier (call_log_id). This clearly distinguishes it from create_call_log (creation) and search_call_logs (read-only search).

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?

It states explicit requirements: call_log_id, updated_by, and at least one field to update. It also directs users to list_call_types and list_users for resolving IDs, and constrains related_to_type to three values. This gives clear context though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it.

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