update_contact

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), but the description does not disclose whether the update is partial or full-replacement, what happens to omitted fields, or any side effects. It fails to leverage the annotation context to provide useful behavioral specifics.

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 extremely short (three words), but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. For a tool with 29 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide at least a sentence or two of context. It does not earn its place as a helpful summary.

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?

The tool is highly complex (29 parameters, 5 required, no output schema), yet the description offers no information about return values, update semantics, error conditions, or interaction with the required fields. It is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the full scope of the operation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 52%, the description does not compensate for the gap in parameter documentation. It provides no information about how parameters relate to the edit operation, which fields are commonly updated, or what the required fields represent beyond their schema descriptions. The description adds zero value to parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Edit') and resource ('a contact'), making the primary purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools that target other resources (e.g., update_contact_group, update_contact_relation), though it does not add any detail about the specific contact attributes or behavior.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like create_contact, delete_contact, search_contacts, or update_contact_group. There is no mention of prerequisites, required fields, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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