ghl_update_contact

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

Given no annotations, the description adds context about the receipt sealing and scope requirement. However, it does not disclose mutation behavior, error conditions, or side effects beyond the receipt.

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?

Three sentences, front-loading the core action. The additional sentences on scope and receipt are concise and add value without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description fails to explain return values, error handling, or field constraints. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description only says 'Update GHL contact fields', implying the 'fields' object contains updates, but no further details on structure or allowed keys.

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 'Update GHL contact fields', which is a specific verb and resource. The name itself indicates update, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_create_contact, though no explicit differentiation is provided.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_create_contact. Only scope and policy requirements are mentioned, not usage context.

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