update_peopleUpdate fields on one or more existing people. Before your first call, read the skill: modem_skills({ name: "write-tools" }).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| people | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / people / items / properties / primaryEmail / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "format": "email",
- "pattern": "^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$",
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "format": "email",
+ "pattern": "^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the bulk scope and skill prerequisite, but never explains what makes this destructive (e.g., whether null values clear existing fields) even though that is the most consequential behavior here.
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?
Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the required prerequisite second. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.
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 write tool with no output schema, annotations carry the safety story and the skill pointer may offload deeper detail. Still, the description omits how field clearing works and any indication of what a call returns, which leaves a real gap for a destructive, idempotent mutation.
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 0% and the single array parameter is entirely undocumented in the schema. The description only implies the array/plural shape and says nothing about which fields are updatable, what a null value does, or the 1-50 item bounds — leaving the agent to reverse-engineer the payload.
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 and resource ('Update fields on ... existing people') and adds the scope detail 'one or more', which signals bulk-update capability. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like merge_people or update_companies, but the operation is 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?
Provides a concrete prerequisite ('Before your first call, read the skill: modem_skills(...)'), which is genuinely useful workflow guidance. It gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as merge_people, so usage is only partially framed.
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.