Update Contact List

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully narrows the scope of mutation to just name and description, but it does not disclose why an update is flagged destructive, whether fields are partial-update, or what happens to omitted fields.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is wasted.

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 small 3-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, this is adequate but thin: the 33% schema coverage leaves optional-parameter behavior and the destructive/partial-update semantics unexplained.

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 only 33% (only 'id' is documented), so the description must compensate. It maps 'rename' to the name parameter and 'change its description' to the description parameter, adding real meaning, but gives no format, length, or clearing semantics (e.g., empty string 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 specific verbs (rename, change description) against the resource (contact list), so the operation is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself naturally from siblings like update-contact, update-tag, and update-template by naming the resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create-list or list-lists. The agent must infer that this is the only route to modify an existing list.

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