update_sip_trunk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update,' which implies mutation but omits critical details: whether this is a full or partial update, whether unsupplied fields are reset, permission requirements, existence checks, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Update') and the resource ('SIP trunk'). It is concise and free of fluff. However, it is so sparse that it sacrifices useful context, though that is penalized more in other dimensions.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify update semantics (partial vs. full), required fields beyond trunk_id, error handling, or any special behaviors for fields like password or enabled. An agent needs more context to call this tool correctly.

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% (all 10 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it only reinforces that trunk_id is the lookup key, which the schema already states as 'SIP trunk UUID.' It does not explain update behavior for the optional fields, such as whether they are partial updates.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a SIP trunk by trunk_id.' This clearly identifies the operation and the target resource. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_sip_trunk or delete_sip_trunk, leaving some differentiation to inference from the name and schema.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, the relationship to create_sip_trunk/list_sip_trunks/delete_sip_trunk, or any conditions under which an update is appropriate. An agent is left without routing information.

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