accelo_update_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral. It does not say whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared (partial vs full update), whether permissions are required, or what happens on an invalid status ID.

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?

Front-loads the operation in one sentence, then lists parameter meaning compactly with no filler. The 'Args:' block is utilitarian rather than polished but wastes nothing.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameter meaning but omits mutation semantics (partial update behavior, permissions, error cases) and return information. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning, and it supplies semantics for all seven params including the required id and the 'fields: Additional fields to return' control. It does not explain the format/domain of 'status' (status ID) beyond noting it is an ID, which is a minor gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing contact'), which is enough to distinguish it from update_company/update_activity/update_task siblings on the basis of the resource alone. It stops short of explicitly naming when this is preferred over e.g. accelo_create_contact or accelo_deactivate_contact.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_contact or deactivate_contact. The agent must infer that this is for modifying existing contacts only from the verb.

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