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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: login token or cloud-market binding required, 401 on unauthenticated calls, and code=40003 with data.bindUrl when the instance is unbound. It stops short of describing overwrite semantics — whether omitted fields are left unchanged — which matters for a mutation tool with zero required parameters.

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?

Front-loaded with the login requirement and the core purpose, then the auth/error detail. The '本体: contact → Action: update' line is largely redundant with the title, but everything else is short and earns its place.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and no per-parameter documentation, the description resolves only authentication and leaves the identifier requirement and partial-update semantics unspecified. An agent still cannot tell how to form a valid call from the description alone.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate; it only maps to two of them (姓名、手机号 → customerName/customerMobile). The duplicate contactId/contactid pair, IDType, gender, marital, birthday and customerID are entirely unexplained, and nothing says which identifier is actually required despite zero declared required fields.

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 (更新) and resource (体检人信息) with concrete field examples (姓名、手机号), which distinguishes it from contact_create/contact_get/contact_list without naming them. The '本体: contact → Action: update' line reinforces the verb-resource pairing.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: call it to modify an existing examinee record. It never states when to prefer contact_profile_save or contact_profile_get instead, nor what preconditions (e.g., an existing contactId) must hold before calling, so an agent must infer the boundary from sibling names.

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