crm_update_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: what permissions are required, whether updates are reversible, how conflicts are handled, what happens to unspecified properties, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 maximally concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target, making it immediately understandable at a basic level despite its other deficiencies.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters (including a complex nested object), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens during the update, what validation occurs, what errors might be returned, or how to interpret results. The description fails to provide the contextual completeness needed for safe and effective tool usage.

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 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides no additional semantic information about objectType, objectId, or properties. The description doesn't explain what constitutes a valid objectId, what the 'custom' objectType option means, or what format the properties object should take. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Update') and target ('existing CRM object'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many siblings like crm_update_company, crm_update_contact, or crm_batch_update_objects, which all perform similar update operations on CRM entities.

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. With numerous sibling tools that perform similar CRM update operations (crm_update_company, crm_update_contact, crm_update_lead, crm_batch_update_objects), there's no indication of when this general 'object' update is preferred over the more specific tools or batch operations.

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