ghl_update_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals the key behavioral trait that only provided fields are changed, implying a merge/patch behavior. However, it omits other important traits such as return values, error handling, or how array fields like tags are handled.

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—two short sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately follow with the most important usage instruction. There is no redundant 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 mutation tool with 17 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not address how to handle arrays like tags or customFields, what the response contains, or prerequisites such as the contact needing to exist. The partial-update tip is useful but insufficient for complete guidance.

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 only 6% (only contactId is described). The description's 'only provide fields you want to change' adds general parameter usage context, but it does not explain the semantics of the 16 undocumented fields, nor does it compensate for the lack of descriptions in the schema.

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 states 'Update an existing contact' with a clear verb and resource, and 'Only provide fields you want to change' clarifies the partial-update scope. This distinguishes it from create/upsert/delete siblings through the word 'existing' and the update semantics.

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 implies usage when a contact already exists and specific fields need modification, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like ghl_upsert_contact. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or direct sibling comparisons.

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