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

The annotation destructiveHint=true signals mutation risk, and the description usefully adds 'Only provided fields change', clarifying partial-update semantics that the annotation does not. However, it does not disclose whether updates are reversible, what validation failures look like, or any rate limits, leaving real behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose, key semantic (partial update), then endpoint. No filler and the most decision-relevant fact comes first.

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 4-param mutation with no output schema, the definition covers identity, partial-update behavior, and the endpoint, but omits permissions, reversibility, and return shape. It is minimally sufficient to call correctly but not rich.

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 each parameter is already documented including the note that id goes in the path and the open-ended custom attributes object. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource: update fields on an existing contact, plus the underlying REST endpoint PUT /contacts/{id}. Siblings like reamaze_create_contact and reamaze_get_contact are implicitly distinguished by 'existing' and 'update', but the description never names them explicitly, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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 phrase 'existing contact' implies the contact must already exist, which mildly signals usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs reamaze_create_contact or reamaze_get_contact, and no mention of required permissions or prerequisites. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the routing.

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