teamleader_update_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update an existing contact' without explaining whether the update is partial or full replacement, how tags are handled (merge vs overwrite), required permissions, or whether changes are irreversible. This is insufficient 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?

The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition of schema details. It is appropriately short for a tool whose schema fully documents its parameters, though more behavioral context would be welcome.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (9 params, 1 required), no annotations, and no output schema. The description only covers the basic action and leaves out crucial details about behavior, return values, and usage context. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, and the schema itself lists valid values for enums. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing contact in Teamleader Focus' clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (contact). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like teamleader_create_contact (create vs update) and teamleader_get_contact (read vs write), but it does not differentiate from tag-specific updates like teamleader_contacts_add_tags, which also modify a contact.

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. There is no mention of whether this should be used for general field updates while add_tags/remove_tags are reserved for tag management, nor any indication of prerequisites or edge cases where another tool would be more appropriate.

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