Update an existing contact by sending only the fields you want to change, using the contact ID and required client/name/email details.
Updates a contact. Send only the fields you want to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Request body for updating an existing contact. ContactId, bound from the route, identifies the contact. | |
| contactId | Yes | Contact to update. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: no mention of what happens to omitted fields, whether the operation is idempotent, permission requirements, or what is returned — and its partial-update claim conflicts with the schema, which marks ClientId, FirstName, LastName and PrimaryEmail as required in the body.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one operational instruction. There is no filler, repetition, or hedging.
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?
The body is a nested object with 14 properties and no output schema, and there are no annotations providing extra behavior detail. For that level of complexity the description should at minimum clarify the required-fields conflict and describe the response or side effects; two sentences leave the agent ill-equipped.
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%, which ordinarily sets a baseline of 3. But the one piece of parameter-related information in the description is misleading: it tells the agent to send only changed fields, while the input schema requires four body properties on every call. This actively steers an agent toward a failing or incomplete 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Updates a contact"), which is unambiguous against siblings like gorelo_create_contact and gorelo_get_contact. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from other update_* tools, but for a single-resource update the intent is clear.
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?
"Send only the fields you want to change" does address the PATCH-vs-PUT ambiguity, which is real guidance. However, it gives no when-to-use context versus create_contact, no prerequisites (e.g. contact must exist), and the guidance is contradicted by the schema's required body fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.