update_tracker

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the greeting_text constraint, silent ignore of status, side effect on call_flow's destination, and that setting fields to None leaves them unchanged. It also notes that permanent removal requires contacting support.

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 well-structured with sections, but slightly verbose (repeats 'field-level rules' and 'Args' list). However, every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the core action. A minor reduction could improve conciseness without losing clarity.

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 7 parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all fields, special conditions, side effects, and even explains edge cases (status ignored, greeting dependency).

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter (except account_id auto-resolution and tracker_id requirement), provides format example for destination_number, and states the non-empty string rule. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Update a tracker's mutable settings' and lists specific fields (name, destination, whisper, greeting, SMS), clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_tracker' and 'delete_tracker' by focusing on updating existing trackers.

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 clear when-to-use context: updating mutable settings. It includes explicit warnings about the greeting_text/destination_number dependency and advises using delete_tracker for disabling, effectively guiding correct usage versus alternatives.

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