update_contact_relation

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey (non-read-only, non-destructive). It doesn't disclose side effects, handling of missing relations, or response behavior, leaving the agent to infer from the schema and the tool name without added insight.

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 concise, using only four words with no filler. While brevity is generally good, the text is so minimal that it omits necessary details, yet as a standalone phrase it is well-structured and easy to read.

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 description is incomplete for an update tool. It doesn't explain what a contact relation is, what updating entails, which fields are valid, or what the outcome will be. The schema and annotations provide some structural context, but the description's one-liner leaves critical gaps for an agent trying to make an informed invocation.

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 description makes no contribution to parameter understanding. The schema already describes three of four parameters (contact_id, contact_sub_id, contact_relation_id), but the 'description' field remains undocumented, and the tool description adds no examples, constraints, or explanations to bridge that gap.

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 'Edit a contact relation' clearly identifies the action (edit) and resource (contact relation), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like create or delete. However, it lacks specific scope, such as which attributes can be modified, and doesn't explicitly differentiate from the tool name 'update_contact_relation' beyond using a synonym.

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 like create_contact_relation or delete_contact_relation. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, so the agent has no directional support for selecting this tool.

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