retell_update_call

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid call_id), or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('update') and resource ('call'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success (e.g., returns updated call object) or failure, security implications, or side effects. For a tool that modifies call data, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 (call_id, metadata, data_storage_setting) with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, constraints, or interactions between parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the target ('call metadata or data storage settings for a specific call'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'retell_get_call' (read) and 'retell_delete_call' (delete), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'retell_update_agent' or 'retell_update_phone_number' beyond the resource type.

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 call ID), compare with other update tools (e.g., 'retell_update_agent' for agents), or indicate when metadata vs. data storage settings should be updated. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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