update_call

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only reveals that this is a PUT mutation; it does not disclose auth requirements, partial vs. full replacement semantics, response shape, error behavior, or side effects.

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 one concise sentence plus the endpoint, with no filler and the action front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it may be under-specified for a 13-parameter operation, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

Although the input schema is rich, there are no annotations and no output schema. The description provides no usage context, behavioral details, return value, authentication notes, or error semantics. For a complex mutation tool, this is a significant 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?

Schema description coverage is 92%, and the schema already provides detailed parameter documentation including outcome enum values, the userId admin restriction, and extraBody/extraQuery behavior. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a call'), and gives the HTTP endpoint. This distinguishes it from create_call, get_call, and list_calls. It is minimal but not a tautology, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_call, get_call, or list_calls. It does not mention that an existing call is required, nor does it discuss the admin-only userId behavior. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Update'.

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