update_phone_number

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'Update' and lists connection_id/tags, implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or any constraints. The return type is generic ('Dict[str, Any]') and adds no behavioral insight.

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 compact and organized with a one-line purpose followed by an Args list and a Returns line. It avoids excessive prose, though the return type line ('Dict[str, Any]') adds little value and the Args list partially conflicts with the schema.

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 that the schema has a nested 'request' object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It leaves the request payload format unexplained and does not provide enough context to distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like update_phone_number_messaging_settings. The documentation of extra fields without schema alignment further increases the gap.

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 has 0% description coverage and exposes only 'id' and an opaque 'request' object, while the description documents 'connection_id' and 'tags' that are not schema properties. This mismatch is confusing: the required 'request' parameter is never explained, and the description does not clarify how the documented optional fields relate to the 'request' object. The description adds some meaning for optional fields but fails to align with the actual schema.

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 states the verb and resource clearly ('Update a phone number') and lists parameters, making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like update_phone_number_messaging_settings or get_phone_number, relying only on the tool name for differentiation.

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 simply says 'Update a phone number' and lists parameters, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or situations where another sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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