Contacts Update Contact

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond the annotations. It does not explain whether missing optional fields are cleared or preserved, whether the update is partial or full replacement, what permissions are needed, or what side effects might occur. Annotations include destructiveHint:false, but the description contributes no context of its own.

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 short, but its single sentence is essentially a wrapper that restates the tool name plus a generic 'exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP' phrase. It does not earn its place because it communicates no actionable information.

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 seven-parameter update tool, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain update semantics, required identifier behavior, optional field handling, or how this differs from related contact operations. An agent has no basis to call it correctly beyond guessing from the schema and name.

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%, and the description mentions none of the seven parameters. It does not clarify relationships like contact_id being the lookup key, the meaning of empty-string defaults, or how emails/phones are replaced. The schema alone must carry all semantic weight.

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 only restates the tool name: 'Delegated Apple domain tool 'contacts_update_contact' exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP.' It does not state that the tool updates contact fields or what kind of updates it performs. Aside from the name/title, there is no meaningful verb-resource specification.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool relative to siblings like contacts_create_contact, contacts_delete_contact, contacts_get_contact, or contacts_resolve_message_recipient. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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