update_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fully discloses that the API does not support direct updates, restricts allowed methods, and raises an Exception. This is unusually transparent for a stub 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?

The description is well-organized with Note, Args, Returns, and Raises sections, but it repeats the unsupported-operation warning in both the Note and Raises sections. Minor redundancy, but still clear and scannable.

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 that always raises an exception, the description fully explains why, what methods are permitted, and what alternative to pursue. It lacks an output schema but describes the generic return type, which is acceptable since the tool never succeeds. The suggested alternative ('create a new connection') is not present as a sibling tool, but the description still points to an external action.

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 0%, and the description only adds 'Connection ID' and 'Update data' — generic labels that do not explain the structure or valid fields of the free-form 'data' object. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of property definitions.

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 'Update a connection' and then immediately clarifies that the Telnyx API does not support updating connections directly, making the tool's true purpose (raising an unsupported-operation exception) explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling get/list tools, though the initial phrase could mislead if read out of context.

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 explicitly says only GET, HEAD, and OPTIONS methods are allowed and instructs to 'create a new connection with the desired settings instead.' This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance and names an alternative action.

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