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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description does real work: it discloses merge-not-replace semantics, that status_name changes can trigger automations, and that delete/archive are unavailable. It does not cover auth requirements or error behavior, and the 'PUT' endpoint note sits slightly oddly against the stated partial-update behavior.

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?

Four tight sentences with the partial-update rule front-loaded, followed by the side-effect warning, the exclusion, and the raw endpoint. No filler.

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 24-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials an agent needs: which fields change, what side effects follow, and what is impossible. Auth/permission detail and error/validation behavior are absent, but the schema's actor description partially compensates.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: that all non-required fields are optional and merged, and that status_name has workflow side effects. It still says nothing parameter-specific about the other 22 fields, including custom_fields behavior.

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 (Edit) and resource (existing contact), and immediately scopes it to partial updates: 'only the fields you pass change.' This cleanly separates it from jobnimbus_create_contact and jobnimbus_get_contact, and adds an exclusion ('Cannot delete or archive').

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?

Gives clear operating context: partial-update semantics, the workflow/automation consequence of changing status_name, and the explicit limitation that deletion and archiving are not supported. It does not name an alternative tool by name, so it falls short of a 5.

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