put_url_number_address_url_email_id

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

The description lists error codes (`noent`, `exists`, `no_match`) but fails to disclose other behavioral traits like idempotency, authentication requirements, or side effects. With no annotations, this is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the action. However, it could be structured more usefully, e.g., separating usage from errors.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, many siblings). It omits the resource scope (contact number vs URL/address/email) and usage context, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 input schema has 86% description coverage, so the schema provides most parameter meaning. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond listing error codes, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it updates a ContactNumber using its id, specifying a verb and resource. However, the tool name suggests a composite resource (url_number_address_url_email_id), causing ambiguity. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like put_address_number_address_url_email_id.

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 such as put_address_number_address_url_email_id or put_email_number_address_url_email_id. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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