update_tracker

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. It explains the dangerous side effect of updating only greeting_text (replaces entire call_flow object, zeroes destination), notes that setting status is silently ignored, and clarifies that updating destination_number also updates the call_flow's destination. These are important behavioral traits that an agent needs to know.

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 a summary line, an Args list, field-level rules, and a NOTE. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. Though long, the length is justified by the complexity of the tool.

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 tool with 7 parameters and a known dangerous side effect, the description covers all essential context: parameter rules, side effects, alternatives for disabling, and a note about ignored fields. Since an output schema exists, return values are not needed. The description is complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain every parameter. It does: tracker_id, account_id (auto-resolves), name, destination_number (with example), whisper_message, greeting_text (with critical dependency), and sms_enabled. It also states field-level rules (non-empty strings, pass None to leave unchanged). 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 clearly states the tool updates a tracker's mutable settings and lists the specific fields (name, destination, whisper, greeting, SMS). It differentiates from siblings by naming delete_tracker as the alternative for disabling, and mentions the underlying API behavior. The purpose is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from other update_* tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it notes that setting status is silently ignored, so to disable a tracker you should use delete_tracker, and for permanent removal contact support. It also provides a critical usage rule: if greeting_text is supplied, destination_number must also be supplied to avoid zeroing out the destination. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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