conduyt_update_smart_view_dialing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses partial-update semantics, that the daily cap is counted in the account timezone, that null removes the daily cap, default pool assignment behavior, and that admin privileges are implied ('admin key'). It does not cover reversibility, error behavior, or response shape, keeping it below a 5.

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 field enumeration are front-loaded, followed by the partial-update rule and the sibling routing hint. It is dense but every clause maps to a real setting or rule; the long middle sentence is the only mild readability cost.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral semantics (partial update, timezone, null handling, pool timing, escape hatch to the reorder sibling). Return values need not be explained given there is no output schema, though a note on confirmation/response would complete it.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by adding the partial-update rule and by clarifying the pool-assignment timing semantics ('the moment the dialer offers it' vs 'only when the rep saves a disposition') in plain operational terms. Much of the field detail is already in the schema, so it is additive rather than transformative.

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 names a specific verb (Change) and resource (one Smart View's Smart Dialing settings) and enumerates the exact fields affected. It also distinguishes itself from the ordering sibling by stating that conduyt_reorder_smart_views handles WHICH priority it is, so an agent can separate the two tools without reading schemas.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to conduyt_reorder_smart_views for priority ordering and clarifies partial-update behavior ('Only the fields you pass change'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g., for audience or non-dialing settings), so it is a strong 4 rather than a complete 5.

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