autotask_update_service_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that updates occur, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether updates are partial or full replacement), required permissions, or validation rules. The mention of setting 'complete: true' adds some behavioral context, but it's insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences. The first introduces the tool's purpose, and the second provides actionable usage details. Every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers primary use cases but fails to mention what happens to unspecified fields (assumed unchanged) or the response format. More detail would enhance completeness for an agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing the parameters, especially linking 'complete: true' and status updates to the action of completing a service call. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Update an existing service call' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like autotask_create_service_call and autotask_delete_service_call by focusing on modification and listing the fields that can be changed: status, times, or description.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to change status, times, or description.' It also gives a specific scenario for completion/closure. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from related tools.

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