edit_alert_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Edit an existing alert contact' with no mention of side effects, irreversibility, permission requirements, or error behavior. This is a significant transparency gap 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundant or extraneous information, and the structure is appropriately concise for a simple CRUD operation.

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?

An output schema is present and the input schema fully documents parameters, so the description does not need to explain return values or parameter details. However, the minimal description leaves out behavioral context, such as what happens when the contact_id does not exist or whether all fields are optional. For a low-complexity edit tool, this is marginally sufficient but not fully complete.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of the parameters, each with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 uses a clear verb ('Edit') with a specific resource ('alert contact'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like create_alert_contact and delete_alert_contact. However, it lacks additional scope details, such as which fields can be edited, so it's slightly above average but not maximally 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or contrast with create/delete sibling tools. The name weakly implies it is for modifying existing contacts, but no explicit usage context is given.

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