dealdesk.patch_contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but delivers only one behavioral fact: optimistic concurrency via expectedRevision. It omits what happens on revision mismatch, whether this is a partial merge or replace, and any permission requirements for a mutation tool.

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-loading the operation then the key constraint. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

A 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and near-zero schema coverage needs more than two sentences. Update semantics (fields merging vs replacement), failure modes, and field-level meaning are all absent.

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 coverage is only 11% (just projectId documented) across 9 parameters. The description adds useful meaning only for expectedRevision (its source), leaving email, fields, locale, firstName/lastName, and displayName undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 clear verb+resource ('Update a contact'), which is unambiguous against siblings like create_contact and get_contact. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but 'patch/update' vs 'create'/'get' is self-evident from the name pair.

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?

Adds one workflow prerequisite: expectedRevision must be obtained from get_contact, which implies a read-then-write sequence. However it gives no when-to-use conditions versus create_contact or patch_contact_note, so guidance is only partially implied.

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