salesforce_update_contact

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

Annotations already cover the core safety profile: non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive, open world. The description adds useful context about the domain-agent dispatcher and the JWT/tenant/company scoping, but it does not say what data gets modified, what prerequisites are required, or what side effects may occur beyond the annotation flags. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action name comes first, the routing/scope context is one sentence, and the Args section is minimal with no filler. Every sentence earns its place given how much generic wrapper context is present.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with two unconstrained string parameters and no embedded parameter schema, the description leaves critical gaps: no example invocation, no indication of required contact identifiers, no explanation of the update semantics, and no caveats about when not to use it. The output schema may cover return shape, but the input side is too underspecified for an agent to invoke this tool correctly and safely.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does briefly explain `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional JSON string of structured inputs, which is more than the bare schema provides. However, it gives no domain-specific structure, such as how to specify the contact ID or which fields are updatable, so an agent still cannot confidently construct the `inputs` payload.

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 names a specific action (`update_contact`) and the resource it affects (Salesforce contact), and it clarifies that this is the platform's domain-agent action routed through a dispatcher rather than a direct API call. It falls short of a 5 because it never explains what an update entails—such as which fields can be changed or how the contact is identified—so it relies partly on the tool name for meaning.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool over sibling tools like `salesforce_create_contact`, `salesforce_get_contact`, or `salesforce_passthrough`. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but that is a mechanism detail, not a usage condition or selection criterion.

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