update_scenario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'update' but does not disclose effects on ongoing calls, permissions required, irreversibility, or side effects. The behavioral profile is minimal.

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 two sentences, concise and to the point. No unnecessary words. Slight improvement could be making the second sentence more specific, but overall 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?

Missing output schema and description of return values. No mention of what happens after update (success message, updated object). Given it's a mutation tool, the description should cover behavioral consequences and prerequisites.

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 explains parameters. The description adds that either code or name can be updated, but this is already implied by schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no significant extra meaning is added.

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 updates the code or name of a VoxEngine scenario in Voximplant, and allows dynamic change of call logic. It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('scenario'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_scenarios (retrieve) and start_call (initiate).

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 dynamically modifying call logic, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of prerequisites or alternatives among siblings.

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