wrike_update_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update', which implies mutation, but doesn't reveal potential side effects, permission requirements, or how metadata is handled (e.g., merge vs. replace). This is a significant gap for an update operation.

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 one-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately detailed; the brevity borders on minimalism, lacking useful context that could be included without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for an update tool with two parameters. It fails to explain what contact information can be updated, whether metadata is merged or replaced, or any expected behavior, leaving the agent guessing. More context is needed for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both contactId and metadata have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as how metadata key-value pairs are updated or special format requirements, but the schema already provides basic parameter information.

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 'Update contact information' clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (contact), distinguishing it from read-only contact tools like wrike_get_contact. However, the scope 'information' is vague and doesn't specify which fields are editable, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools.

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 instead of alternatives like wrike_list_contacts or wrike_get_contact. There are no usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate invocation.

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