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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals mutation via 'update' but does not clarify whether this is a partial update, whether omitted optional fields are cleared, whether the contact must already exist, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains.

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 short and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A six-word phrase that essentially restates the tool name does not provide enough structure or content for a five-parameter mutation tool.

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?

This is a mutating tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to supply meaningful context. It does not explain when to use it, what behavior to expect, what the return value is, or any edge cases, leaving the agent to rely almost entirely on the bare schema.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with at least minimal descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra semantic detail about parameters such as email uniqueness, field overwrite behavior, or relationships between organization_id and contact_id.

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 the verb 'update' and the resource 'CRM contact,' which clearly identifies the core action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, list, and delete for CRM contacts. However, it adds almost no detail beyond what the tool name already conveys, so it is clear but not richly informative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as com...crm_contacts_create, com...crm_contacts_get, or com...crm_contacts_delete. The word 'update' implies modifying an existing contact, but the description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where a different CRM tool would be more appropriate.

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