volkern_update_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it updates contact information, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, what happens to unspecified fields, error handling, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update an existing contact's information'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though it could benefit from additional context.

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 the complexity (a mutation tool with 9 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, usage context, or expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies data, this level of detail is insufficient to guide an AI agent effectively.

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 low at 11%, with only 'contactId' having a description. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's implied by the tool name (e.g., it doesn't explain what fields like 'nombre', 'cargo', or 'tags' represent, their formats, or constraints). This fails to compensate for the poor schema coverage, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 information' clearly states the action (update) and resource (contact), but it's vague about what specific information can be updated. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'volkern_create_contact' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'volkern_update_cita' or 'volkern_update_lead' beyond the resource type.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a contactId), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new contacts), or how it compares to similar tools like 'volkern_create_contact' or 'volkern_get_contact'. The description only states the basic function without context.

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