retell_update_chat_agent

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 states 'Update' implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates), or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, permissions), usage context, and what to expect upon success or failure. For a tool that modifies resources, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for reliable agent operation.

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 description doesn't add meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'agent_id' as the ID to update, 'agent_name' as new display name). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing extra explanation in the description.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('a chat agent's configuration'), which provides a basic understanding of purpose. However, it's vague about what 'configuration' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'retell_update_agent' or 'retell_update_conversation_flow', which likely update different types of agents or configurations. The description is functional but lacks specificity.

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 agent), exclusions (e.g., what can't be updated), or comparisons to siblings like 'retell_update_agent' (which may update a different agent type) or 'retell_get_chat_agent' (for reading). Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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