Update Vapi Squad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action 'update' but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 the complexity of an update operation, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, response format, or side effects. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is incomplete, especially for a tool that modifies resources.

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 already documents all three parameters (squadId, name, members) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by listing 'rename it or change its members,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what's in the structured fields.

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 ('update') and resource ('squad'), specifying what can be modified ('rename it or change its members'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like vapi_create_squad and vapi_delete_squad by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from vapi_update_assistant, which might have similar functionality for a different resource.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing squad ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like vapi_update_assistant. Usage is implied through the action 'update,' but no explicit context or decision criteria are provided.

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