Update SIP endpoint

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) by disclosing that username is permanent, that only passed fields mutate, and that a new password force-signs-out every registered device until re-registration. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs and cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Three tightly-packed sentences, front-loaded with what changes, followed by the immutability constraint, the password side effect, and the gating requirement. No filler sentences.

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 output schema, the description covers mutability scope, irreversibility of specific fields, side effects, and prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

With only 38% schema description coverage, the description compensates by naming nearly all eight parameters (alias, password, application, allow_voice/message/video) and the confirm gate. It doesn't clarify syntax for endpoint_id or the boolean semantics, but meaning is largely added beyond the schema.

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 (Change) and resource (Vobiz SIP endpoint), then enumerates exactly which fields are mutable: alias, password, application, and voice/message/video permissions. This cleanly distinguishes it from create_sip_endpoint, delete_sip_endpoint, and get_sip_endpoint siblings.

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?

Clearly communicates partial-update semantics ('only the fields you pass change') and names the two gating prerequisites (VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING and confirm: true). It lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer this over, say, delete/recreate, but the conditions for calling it are clear.

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