Update voice application

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive/openWorld/idempotent), it discloses a non-obvious side effect: Vobiz resets default_endpoint_app to false when omitted, so the tool re-sends the current value. It also discloses the feature-flag gate and confirm requirement, which annotations do not carry. This is exactly the kind of hidden mutation behavior an agent needs.

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?

Two tight sentences: the purpose leads, and the high-risk quirk plus gating follow. Every clause carries distinct information with no filler.

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 destructive, 11-parameter mutation with no output schema and very thin schema descriptions, the definition covers the riskiest behavior (the default_endpoint_app reset) and the auth gate but omits meaning for most parameters and any notion of what the call returns. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is only 18% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It explains the semantics of one parameter (default_endpoint_app) and gestures at 'URLs or flags', but answer_url, hangup_url, the *_method enums, fallback_answer_url, and the default_* booleans are left undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a Vobiz application's URLs or flags'), which is far more informative than a restatement of the name. It is clearly distinguishable in kind from create_application/delete_application, though it never names those siblings to route the agent explicitly.

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?

It states the two invocation preconditions (VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING must be enabled and confirm: true is required), which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to choose this over create_application or update_phone_number, so the when/when-not framing is only implied.

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