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

No annotation contradicting description; readOnlyHint: false aligns with update being a write operation. The description adds context on bulk execution via ids but does not disclose potential impacts, permission requirements, or partial failure behavior. With no annotations beyond readOnly, the description carries some burden but only partially addresses it.

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 compact but poorly structured: the initial English fluff ('[Flattened action: update]' and 'Bulk support:') is metadata better placed elsewhere. The core information about single vs. bulk is buried in dense, mixed-language prose. A cleaner format could convey the same in fewer words with better readability.

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 tool with no output schema and 10 params, the description is minimal. It gives the essential update logic but lacks parameter details, expected payload structure, and behavioral context (e.g., whether 'data' is a JSON string, how bulk handles failures). The lack of output schema means the description should clarify what the tool returns, which it does not.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions id, data, and ids, leaving seven other parameters undocumented. The description does not explain the format of the data parameter (e.g., JSON string) or the role of filter, query, page, etc. This is insufficient for a 10-parameter schema, though the single/bulk logic is a start.

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 tool updates contacts, distinguishing between single (with id) and bulk (without id) operations, which differentiates it from sibling tools like kommo_contacts_create, kommo_contacts_get, and kommo_contacts_list. However, the opening sentence is confusingly phrased ('Contacts do Kommo. action: list...') and flips between Portuguese and English, undermining clarity.

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 clarifies that 'update' is the relevant action and distinguishes between single vs. bulk update based on presence of id, which is useful. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites, but the id/bulk distinction provides enough guidance for basic usage.

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