crm_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 states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions 'validated properties', but doesn't explain what validation entails, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Update an existing contact') and adds a qualifying detail ('with validated properties'). Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (mutation tool with nested parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the update behavior, validation process, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified properties. For a tool that modifies CRM data, more contextual information is needed to use it 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?

The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema. It mentions 'validated properties' which hints at validation for the properties object, but doesn't explain what validation means or provide examples. With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (one being a complex nested object), the description doesn't adequately compensate for the lack of schema documentation, though it at least acknowledges the properties parameter.

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 ('an existing contact'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'crm_create_contact' by specifying 'existing' and from 'crm_batch_update_contacts' by being singular. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'validated properties' means or how it differs from other update tools like 'crm_update_object'.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a contactId), when not to use it (e.g., for batch operations), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'crm_batch_update_contacts' or 'crm_update_object'. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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