update_phone_number

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool updates a phone number, implying a mutation, but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. The return type 'Dict[str, Any]' is too vague to understand the response structure.

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 structured with sections for Args and Returns, which is clear, but it includes unnecessary details like 'Dict[str, Any]' without explaining the response content. The mismatch between described and actual parameters reduces efficiency, as the tool's true usage isn't accurately conveyed.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, parameter details, or response format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 description lists parameters (id, connection_id, tags) that do not match the input schema, which only has 'id' and 'request'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaningful semantics beyond naming mismatched parameters, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a phone number'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'update_phone_number_messaging_settings', which handles a specific subset of phone number updates, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'update_phone_number_messaging_settings' for messaging-specific updates or 'get_phone_number' for read-only access. It also lacks context about prerequisites, like whether the phone number must exist or be in a specific state.

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