crm_update_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: what permissions are required, whether updates are partial or complete, how validation works, what happens with invalid properties, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 maximally concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It should explain the update behavior, parameter usage, error handling, and relationship to sibling tools. The current description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool selection and 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain what 'objectType' values mean, how 'objectId' is formatted, or what 'properties' should contain. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('existing CRM object'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many CRM-related siblings (like crm_update_company, crm_update_contact, etc.), which would require specifying that this is a generic update tool for multiple object types.

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 the many specific CRM update tools (crm_update_company, crm_update_contact, crm_update_lead) or batch alternatives (crm_batch_update_objects). There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or appropriate contexts for this generic update versus specialized updates.

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