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 but only states it's an update operation without disclosing behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether updates are partial or full, idempotency, error handling, or side effects. It mentions 'existing' object but doesn't clarify what happens if the object doesn't exist or if properties are invalid.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it's arguably too concise given the tool's complexity (3 parameters including nested objects) and lack of annotations, potentially under-specifying rather than being optimally concise.

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 nested objects), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what CRM object types are available, how updates work, what the response contains, or error conditions. The context demands more completeness than provided.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what objectType enum values represent, how objectId is formatted, or what properties object should contain. The description 'Update an existing CRM object' implies parameters but provides no semantic details beyond what's obvious from the tool name.

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 CRM object' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (CRM object), but it's vague about what constitutes an update and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like crm_update_company, crm_update_contact, or crm_batch_update_objects. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or distinction from alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling update tools (e.g., crm_update_company, crm_batch_update_objects). The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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