joltsms_update_number

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses partial-update semantics ('Only provided fields are updated. Omitted fields remain unchanged') and clearing semantics for tags and notes. It still omits permissions/auth requirements and error behavior, but the core mutation behavior is well explained.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then states the partial-update rule, then shows concrete examples. Every sentence earns its place and the structure makes the key behavioral rule immediately visible.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, update semantics, and clearing behavior. It is nearly complete, though it does not mention auth requirements or failure modes, which an agent might want before mutating production metadata.

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 schema already documents every parameter including clearing semantics and length limits. The description's field list and examples add only marginal meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Update metadata on a phone number') and enumerates the mutable fields ('service label, tags, or notes'). This is clearly distinct from read siblings like joltsms_get_number and lifecycle siblings like joltsms_provision_number/joltsms_release_number.

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 implies usage through purpose and invocation examples, but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as joltsms_get_number or when not to use it. No explicit routing guidance or preconditions are given.

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