Update Contact

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds PATCH semantics, which aligns with the annotations. The description also explains the return format. No contradictions are present, and the description adds useful context beyond the annotations.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences and a bullet about returns. It is well-structured with the key purpose and semantics front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema) and low schema coverage, the description adequately covers the update semantics and return format. It could mention how to obtain the 'id', but overall it is fairly complete for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 low (31%), and the description does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond stating that only provided fields are changed. While the schema describes some parameters, the description fails to add significant meaning for the majority of parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'contact', and explicitly mentions PATCH semantics, differentiating it from create/get/delete tools among siblings. It specifies that only provided fields are changed, leaving omitted fields unchanged.

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?

The description instructs the agent to supply the numeric 'id' and only the fields to change, and clarifies that omitting a field leaves it unchanged. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with related tools like netbox_update_contact_assignment.

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