calls_update

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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether partial updates are allowed, what happens to unspecified properties, error conditions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately understandable despite its brevity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and complex nested parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral constraints, return values, or differentiation from sibling tools. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured documentation.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain that 'callId' identifies which call to update and 'properties' contains the fields to modify. For a tool with 2 parameters (one being a complex nested object with 9 sub-properties), this is a substantial documentation gap.

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 resource ('an existing call record'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'calls_batch_update' or 'emails_update', which would require mentioning it's for single call updates specifically.

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. With sibling tools like 'calls_batch_update' for multiple calls and 'calls_create' for new calls, there's no indication of when this single-update tool is appropriate versus batch operations or other update tools in the system.

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