crm_update_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, validation behavior for 'validated properties', error handling, or response format. The phrase 'validated properties' hints at validation but lacks detail on what validation entails or failure modes.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted words or redundancy. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details like parameter requirements or behavioral traits.

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 (mutation tool with nested properties, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage), the description is insufficient. It doesn't address key aspects like what 'validated properties' means, how updates are applied, error conditions, or response expectations. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'validated properties' which loosely corresponds to the 'properties' parameter, but doesn't explain the structure, required fields, or the 'contactId' parameter. It adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferable from the schema's property names and types.

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 resource ('an existing contact'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like crm_create_contact by specifying 'existing contact' and from crm_batch_update_contacts by being singular. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'validated properties' means or how it differs from other update tools like crm_update_object.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a contactId), compare to batch operations like crm_batch_update_contacts, or indicate when to use crm_update_contact versus crm_update_object. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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