Update Voice Integration

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond restating the update operation. It does not explain whether the metadata is fully replaced or merged, or any side effects, providing minimal value over the annotations.

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 concise and to the point, with a clear opening sentence followed by a minimal Args section. There is no redundancy or wasted wording, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

While the core purpose and parameters are covered, the description omits important contextual details like merge-vs-replace behavior, potential constraints on metadata, or prerequisites. Given the output schema exists, return values are not needed, but the description is otherwise minimally adequate for a simple update tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is responsible for explaining parameters. It provides basic definitions for integration_id and metadata, but lacks deeper semantics such as the expected structure of the metadata object or whether it is a partial update, leaving significant room for clarification.

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 resource ('a voice provider integration's metadata'), using a specific verb+resource structure. It distinguishes itself from sibling voice integration tools like connect, rotate, and delete by focusing on metadata updates.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is only implied by the tool name and description, offering no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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