Update Contact_group

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies PATCH semantics (modifies only provided fields) and describes the return format (markdown or JSON). Annotations already indicate destructive hint, so the description complements them well.

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 five sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects) and the lack of output schema, the description covers the main usage points: PATCH behavior, required id, optional fields, and response format. It does not explicitly state that the contact group must exist, but that is implied. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description provides essential parameter guidance: it emphasizes that only the 'id' is required and that omitted fields are unchanged. It also explains the 'response_format' parameter and the nature of the response. This adds meaningful context that the schema alone does not fully convey.

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'), the resource ('existing contact_group'), and the semantics ('PATCH semantics — only provided fields are changed'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create and delete.

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 explains how to use the tool ('Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.'). It does not explicitly specify when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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