update_sales_agent_config

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

With no annotations provided (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint are absent), the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Update' implies mutation, but the description doesn't state whether changes are immediately applied, whether this triggers any side effects (e.g., restarting autopilot), whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 parenthetical-enumerated sentence that lists all configurable fields with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include redundant 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?

For a moderately complex mutation tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The schema documents all parameters well. However, without annotations or any disclosure of side effects, persistence behavior, or return value, there's room for more. The absence of output schema and annotation coverage shifts more burden to the description, which it doesn't fully satisfy.

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 all 6 parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description's phrase 'confidence threshold' and 'reply limits' maps to the schema parameters but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't add much.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' with a clear resource 'AI sales agent configuration' and enumerates the configurable fields (enable/disable, cal link, offer price, reply limits, confidence threshold). It's clear about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from its read counterpart (get_sales_agent_config), which is a sibling tool.

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 alternatives. The read sibling get_sales_agent_config exists but isn't referenced. There's no indication of prerequisites (e.g., whether the agent must be configured first, whether auth is required). The description implies usage context but gives no exclusions or alternatives.

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