bolna_update_sip_trunk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'partially update' and lacks details on side effects (e.g., immediate vs. queued updates), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., what if trunk_id does not exist).

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 a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the core action. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits failure modes, required permissions, return values, and confirmation of operation success. The tool is complex enough to warrant richer context.

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 input schema has 7 parameters with only trunk_id described. The description adds 'only included fields are changed', which clarifies partial update semantics but does not explain the meaning of each field (e.g., inbound_enabled). With 14% schema coverage, the description insufficiently compensates.

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 clearly states the action ('Partially update') and the resource ('existing SIP trunk'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, get, list, and delete. The phrase 'only included fields are changed' further clarifies the partial update behavior.

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 indicates that it modifies only specified fields, implying a patch operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., recreating the trunk for full updates) or any prerequisites (e.g., trunk must exist).

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