Modify a conference bridge

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, non-idempotent), it adds specifics: requires operator write opt-in, confirm:true, may notify recipients or change tenant data. This enriches the behavioral profile without contradicting the annotations.

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?

A single paragraph with all essential information: endpoint, fields, requirements, and reference. It is compact and front-loaded, though it could benefit from bullet points for readability.

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?

Covers the mutation's side effects, prerequisites, and payload structure. Since there is no output schema, it appropriately references the API documentation for further details, making it sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema only defines body as an object with required id and additionalProperties; the description lists all meaningful body fields (name, tollNumber, etc.) and explains the confirm:true requirement, adding value 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?

Clearly states the tool modifies a conference bridge, with the specific endpoint and a list of body fields. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_conference_bridges or create_an_external_conference_bridge by its verb and resource.

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 use for modifying existing bridges, and the list of body fields clarifies what can be changed. It does not explicitly contrast with create/delete, but the context is evident from the name and the 'modify' action.

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