update_phone_number

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, or whether the update is immediate. For a write operation, more transparency is needed.

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 brief and uses a clear docstring structure with parameter explanations. It could be more concise by removing redundant 'Args:' formatting, but it's still efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, 1 required, output schema exists), the description covers the essential fields and behavior. It does not discuss return values (partially covered by output schema) or side effects, but is largely 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value: it explains that phone_number_id comes from list_phone_numbers, defines friendly_name as a human-readable label, and clarifies auto_reply behavior (empty string disables).

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'phone number', specifying the updatable fields (friendly name or auto-reply message). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_phone_number or release_phone_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 explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., auto_reply as 'automatic reply text' and that empty string disables it). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the purpose is self-evident given the siblings.

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