Update trunk origination URI

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: the env-var gating, the mandatory confirm flag, the fact that only label/priority are mutable here, and that resending current values preserves them. It stops short of describing failure modes or the immediate routing effect of a priority change, so it lands just under full marks.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by requirements, the alternative path, and the gate condition. Every sentence carries a distinct, actionable fact and none is redundant.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, prerequisites (env gate and confirm), parameter obligations, and scope limits. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 75% and the description reinforces requiredness for both name and priority and the 'resend the current value you keep' convention. It adds meaning over the schema by noting that weight and enabled are not editable through this tool, though it doesn't elaborate on uri_id or priority bounds beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Replace a Vobiz origination URI's label and priority') plus a concrete motivating scenario (promoting a failover destination to primary). It is clearly distinguishable from create_origination_uri/delete_origination_uri, which it explicitly routes away from for host changes.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use case (promote failover to primary), an explicit when-not with the alternative named ('To point at a different host, create a new origination URI and delete this one'), and the operational precondition (VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING plus confirm: true). Nothing is left to inference.

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