update_emergency_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only labels the operation as a 'mutation' and gives an example payload, without mentioning side effects, partial vs. full updates, required permissions, or error handling. This is far below what an agent needs to understand the tool's behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the mutation identity, followed by a useful example. There is no redundant prose, and the example earns its place by compensating for the schema's lack of detail. It is not perfectly structured, but it is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description does not explain the return value, behavior on invalid IDs, or update semantics. The example input provides some context, but the tool remains under-specified for an agent to invoke it confidently in a real workflow.

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 schema's 'input' parameter description is just 'GraphQL: UpdateEmergencyContactInput!' which gives no structure. The example variables in the description compensate by showing the nested fields (callAttempts, callCategories, callWindows, id, phoneNumber) and their types. This adds meaningful shape beyond the schema, though it doesn't explain field semantics.

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 mostly restates the operation name ('updateEmergencyContact') and the resource ('Emergency Contacts'), making it a tautology. It does not explain what updating an emergency contact accomplishes, though the example variables hint at modifiable fields. This is insufficient to distinguish the tool from its create/delete siblings beyond the verb in the name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus create_emergency_contact or delete_emergency_contact. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., an existing contact ID) or provide exclusions. The user must infer usage solely from the name and example input.

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