Update a DealDesk contact with its expected revision to prevent overwriting concurrent changes; retrieve the revision first via get_contact.
Update a contact. Requires expectedRevision from get_contact for optimistic concurrency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | |||
| fields | No | ||
| locale | No | ||
| lastName | No | ||
| contactId | Yes | ||
| firstName | No | ||
| projectId | Yes | DealDesk project id (must match API key / OAuth project) | |
| displayName | No | ||
| expectedRevision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the optimistic concurrency requirement (needing expectedRevision) but omits critical details like partial vs full update semantics, error behavior on revision mismatch, required permissions, and what happens to omitted fields.
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 then the concurrency prerequisite. No wasted words, though it is arguably too terse for the tool's complexity.
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?
For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and very low schema description coverage, the description is far from complete. It addresses only the concurrency mechanism and leaves parameter meanings, update semantics, and error handling undocumented.
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 only 11% (only projectId has a description). The description adds meaning only for expectedRevision by indicating its source, but provides no insight into the other 8 parameters, including the fields object, email, locale, etc.
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 'Update a contact' which is a clear verb+resource, but it essentially restates the tool name and does not differentiate from siblings like create_contact or patch_company. No indication of what fields can be updated or the scope of the update.
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?
Explicitly states a prerequisite: 'Requires expectedRevision from get_contact for optimistic concurrency.' This tells the agent to call get_contact first and why. No explicit when-not guidance, but for a patch tool the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.