surveymonkey_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 says 'Updates an existing contact (PATCH)' and lists common fields, but does not mention idempotency, partial-update semantics, required permissions, error behavior, or what the response contains.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-line purpose, followed by clearly delineated Args with an example. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter update tool, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, it does not disclose what the tool returns or any notable behavioral edge cases, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 schema only provides types and titles, so the description adds meaningful value by clarifying that payload contains fields to update, listing common fields ('email', 'first_name', 'last_name'), and giving an example payload. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail on the payload object.

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 operation: 'Updates an existing contact (PATCH).' This specifies both the verb and resource, and the PATCH method distinguishes it as a partial update among the contact sibling tools like create_contact, delete_contact, get_contact, and list_contacts.

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 implies use for existing contacts rather than creating new ones, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. There is no direct comparison with create_contact or delete_contact, so the guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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