Update a contact's fields in Xmagnet — job title, company, lifecycle stage, status, notes, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | |||
| notes | No | ||
| phone | No | ||
| company | No | ||
| job_title | No | ||
| last_name | No | ||
| contact_id | Yes | ||
| first_name | No | ||
| linkedin_url | No | ||
| contact_status | No | ||
| lifecycle_stage | No | e.g. lead, prospect, customer, churned |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a mutating but non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose, such as whether partial updates are supported, what happens if the contact does not exist, or any side effects. Given the annotations, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to disclose any meaningful behavioral traits.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.
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?
With 11 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, this description is too minimal. It does not mention the required contact_id, whether fields are optional, or any behavioral details like overwrite semantics. Given the tool's complexity, the description is incomplete and would leave an agent with significant uncertainty.
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 only 9%, so the description must compensate. It mentions several field names (job title, company, lifecycle stage, status, notes) but uses 'etc.' and omits key fields like email, phone, and names. It does not explain the meaning of contact_id or that other fields are optional, doing little to clarify the parameters beyond what the schema already shows.
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 the action ('Update') and the resource ('a contact's fields in Xmagnet'), and it lists several specific fields, distinguishing it from create/add/search/get sibling tools. The verb 'update' is unique among the listed tools, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 implies the tool is for modifying an existing contact's fields, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use create_contact for new contacts'), so it misses the explicit guidance needed for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools occupy nearly identical roles (create_contact/add_contacts/save_contacts_to_crm/upload_contacts; add_companies/create_company; search_contacts/search_crm_contacts/find_contacts_at_companies), and the names don't clearly reveal whether they operate on saved or prospected data. Although the descriptions clarify some boundaries, an agent would frequently need to read many descriptions carefully to avoid mis-selection.
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as list_campaigns, create_deal, and update_contact. Minor deviations like company_intelligence, get_icp, load_more_contacts, and the inconsistent use of add_/create_/upload_/save_ for similar creation actions keep it from being fully consistent.
51 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and exceeds the 50+ extreme threshold. Even for a broad CRM/prospecting/marketing platform, exposing this many tools at once makes agent selection costly and unwieldy.
Contact and company creation/read/update are covered, but delete is absent across the board, and campaigns can be drafted, listed, and measured but not edited, activated, paused, or deleted. Deals, forms, and landing pages also lack update/delete lifecycle actions, creating meaningful dead ends for common CRM workflows.
