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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description need not repeat that this is a mutation. It adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: a prior get_crm_record read is required, and only previously observed e-mail addresses and phone numbers can be removed. It does not explain partial-update semantics for omitted fields.

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 two sentences with no wasted language. The primary update scope is front-loaded, and the prerequisite and removal constraint follow immediately.

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 a rich input schema, an output schema, and destructive annotations, the description provides the key operational context: read first and restrict removals to previously read values. A minor gap is that it does not state whether omitted fields remain unchanged during a partial update.

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 schema already documents all 14 parameters, including person vs. company field applicability and removal constraints. The description adds grouping by person/company and the read-before-remove rule, but does not add parameter syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: change fields on a record in the customer's CRM. It enumerates person and company field scopes and clearly frames the operation as updating an existing record, distinguishing it from sibling add_* tools.

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?

It gives a strong prerequisite: the record must have been read with get_crm_record first. It also constrains removals to e-mail addresses and phone numbers shown by that read. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as add_person_to_crm or add_company_to_crm, but the update vs. create distinction is clear.

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