ghl_voice_ai_patch_agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so description adds value by specifying the HTTP method (PATCH) and OAuth scopes (write). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or that omitted fields are unchanged (implied by PATCH). Additional context like reversibility is missing.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes essential technical details (endpoint, version, OAuth) without fluff. Could be slightly more streamlined by omitting redundant source file, but it remains efficient.

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 PATCH operation with a complex nested body and no output schema, the description does not mention response format, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., agent existence). The openWorldHint annotation is not elaborated upon. Completeness is adequate for a basic understanding but lacks depth.

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 100% and each parameter in the input schema is well-documented with defaults, rules, and constraints. The tool description adds minimal parameter value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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?

Title 'Patch Agent' and description 'Partially update an existing voice AI agent' clearly state the verb (partially update) and resource (existing voice AI agent). Distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list.

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?

Description includes endpoint, version header, and OAuth scopes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create or update alternatives. The term 'partially update' implies usage context, but no when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.

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