update_project_contact

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that the tool updates 'role or attributes', implying a mutation, but does not clarify whether the update is a replacement or merge, what permissions are required, or what the output represents. The description lacks transparency about side effects and constraints.

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 no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly conveys the action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool having 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is extremely brief and omits critical context such as the format of 'fields_json', the effect of leaving 'role' empty, any constraints, and the output structure. It fails to provide a complete understanding of the tool's operation.

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 mentions 'role' and 'attributes', which correspond to the 'role' and 'fields_json' parameters, but completely omits explaining 'project_id' and 'project_contact_id'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify all parameters; it only covers half, leaving the required identifiers unexplained.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'a contact's role or attributes on a project', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_contact_to_project' or 'update_contact'. However, it does not explicitly mention the required identifiers (project_id, project_contact_id), which would clarify the target of the update.

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 'add_contact_to_project', 'remove_contact_from_project', or 'update_contact'. There are no prerequisites or conditions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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