ghl_update_contact_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Update' without mentioning that this is a mutation, whether updates are partial or full, required permissions, or effects on linked data. The behavioral profile is essentially the same as what the tool name already conveys.

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 a single, lean sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the action. It is appropriately minimal, though it could arguably be richer without becoming verbose.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is insufficient. It omits any information about required vs optional fields, intended usage patterns, response values, or edge cases, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is only 14% (just 'completed'), and the description does not explain any of the other six parameters (body, title, dueDate, taskId, contactId, assignedTo), nor their relationships or formats. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 the resource ('a task for a contact'), which is specific and distinguishes it from contact-level updates like ghl_update_contact. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from task create/delete operations, leaving some ambiguity at the sibling level.

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 phrase 'for a contact' implies the tool is used when a task associated with a specific contact needs modification. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of ghl_create_contact_task or ghl_delete_contact_task, nor any exclusion criteria, so the usage context is only implied.

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