update_person

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Update an existing person/contact' and gives no detail on behavioral traits: partial-update semantics, whether missing optional fields null out existing values, permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. 'Update' implies mutation but the description adds essentially nothing beyond that.

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 efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded and concise for its purpose.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is underspecified for a mutation tool. It has 6 params (5 mutable) and no behavioral detail about update semantics. The description is adequate at a high level but should clarify whether this is a full-replace or patch-style update, which is critical for an agent deciding how to invoke it 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 100%, so the schema documents all 6 parameters. However, the description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't indicate which fields are mutable in update context, whether partial updates are supported, or any constraints. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a clear verb+resource: 'Update an existing person/contact'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_person and delete_person, and complements get_people/get_person. The mention of 'existing' clarifies it operates on records that already exist, differentiating from create_person.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that id is required, what happens with partial updates (whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared), or when to prefer create_person over update_person. The context is implied but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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