apollo_update_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a PATCH (partial update) and that label_names replaces the list, but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Basic transparency is present but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and key details. No unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (16 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists but unused), the description is too minimal. It does not explain common use cases, error handling, or how to leverage the return value. While output schema reduces the need to describe return values, the lack of parameter descriptions makes it incomplete.

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 coverage is only 6%, meaning most parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds meaning only for label_names (replaces list), leaving 15 other parameters undescribed. This is insufficient to help the agent understand field semantics beyond their names.

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 'Update a CRM contact via PATCH /contacts/{id}', specifying the verb (update), resource (CRM contact), and HTTP method. This distinguishes it from siblings like apollo_create_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?

Provides clear guidance to 'Pass only the fields you want to change' and warns that 'label_names REPLACES the existing list.' This sets expectations for partial updates and specific field behavior, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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