conduyt_update_call_recording_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the admin scope requirement, PATCH-style merge behavior, the iPhone-line validation rule ('inbound' is refused, 'both' is saved as 'outbound'), the legacy-alias precedence rule ('when both are sent, outbound decides'), the paired-parameter constraint, and the consent responsibility note. These are behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 purpose and admin scope are front-loaded and no clause is filler, but the body is a dense run-on of semicolon-separated rules that is harder to scan than necessary. It earns its length through genuine edge-case detail rather than repetition.

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 7-parameter, all-optional mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers merge semantics, per-parameter meaning, legacy aliasing, iPhone-line validation, and the prerequisite read. It does not mention what the response returns after the update, which is the only notable gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining that 'enabled' is a legacy alias for outbound with a defined precedence, that disclosureEnabled and disclosureOn must be sent together, and that consentGreeting is the spoken sentence with a 500-character cap. The line default and inbound/outbound meanings are also restated usefully, though the 500-char limit duplicates 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?

States a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('workspace's call recording policy') with scope ('admin: settings scope'), and points to the read-only sibling conduyt_get_call_recording_settings, so the agent can distinguish it from the getter without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ('Read conduyt_get_call_recording_settings first') and partial-update semantics ('Send only what changes; what is not sent stays as it is'), plus the admin settings scope requirement. It does not state when the tool should not be used at all, but the routing guidance is concrete.

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