update_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it reveals the tool will fail due to API limitations (only GET, HEAD, OPTIONS allowed), warns about raising an exception, and explains the workaround. This goes far beyond basic functional description.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Note, Args, Returns, Raises) and front-loads the critical limitation. While slightly longer due to the warning, every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 complexity (it's essentially non-functional due to API constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides complete context: it explains the purpose, documents parameters, warns about the exception, and provides an alternative solution. This is comprehensive for a tool with inherent limitations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters (id, data) with basic semantics ('Required. Connection ID' and 'Required. Update data'), but doesn't elaborate on data structure or constraints. This provides minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

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 tool's purpose as 'Update a connection' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting the Telnyx API limitation and providing an alternative approach (create a new connection), making it highly specific and differentiated.

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 provides explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool ('The Telnyx API does not support updating connections directly') and offers a clear alternative ('Please create a new connection with the desired settings instead'). This directly addresses usage context and exclusions.

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