Update SIP trunk

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the provisioning feature flag, the explicit confirm:true approval gate, and the PUT-style merge behavior where unspecified fields are preserved. It still omits permission/scope requirements and what happens on gate failure.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and endpoint, followed by the update semantics and the gating conditions. No filler and nothing 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?

The mutation semantics, approval gate and environment gate are covered, but with 20 parameters at 15% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition leaves a large fraction of the input surface undocumented and says nothing about the response shape or failure modes.

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 20 parameters and only 15% schema description coverage, the description carries most of the burden, and it only gestures at categories ('limits, auth references, failover URIs, recording and webhook_url'). Many parameters (transport, trunk_status, trunk_direction, secure, inbound_destination, transcription flags) are unexplained 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?

Specific verb (change/update) plus resource (SIP trunk) plus the underlying endpoint PUT /trunks/{id}. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings create_sip_trunk, delete_sip_trunk, get_sip_trunk and list_sip_trunks.

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 concrete preconditions for use: 'Gated by VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING and confirm: true', and clarifies the partial-update model ('Only the fields you pass change'). It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. use get_sip_trunk to read, create/delete for other lifecycles), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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