aircall_update_contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which covers mutation safety. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema, such as partial update semantics, error behavior if the contact does not exist, or whether all fields are overwritten. It merely restates the obvious 'update' action without extra transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundancy or wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 straightforward update tool, the description and schema cover the basic context. However, there is no mention of return values, permission requirements, or whether only provided fields are updated. Given the absence of an output schema, the description could have provided more operational context but is adequate for a simple CRUD 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all 5 parameters, each with a clear description. The description phrase 'basic information' vaguely maps to the fields but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 an existing contact's basic information' clearly states the action (update) and resource (contact), using a specific verb. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_contact, delete_contact, and sub-resource updates (update_phone, update_email) by specifying 'existing contact' and 'basic information'.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to update contact details, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like update_phone or update_email. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use cases provided, so guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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