update_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the key behavioral trait of partial updates via POST. It does not cover error handling, authentication, or performance implications, but the core update semantics are communicated.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that immediately convey the action, endpoint, and partial update behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 14 parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It lacks detail on required fields (slug), optional fields, and the custom_fields structure. The agent has insufficient context to correctly construct the request body.

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%, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, leaving the agent to infer semantics from names alone. This is a critical gap.

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 a contact') and specifies the HTTP endpoint ('/v1/contacts/{slug}'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like create_contact or get_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 explains the partial update behavior ('Only non-None fields are forwarded; omitted fields are preserved server-side.'), guiding the agent on how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other tools or specify when not to use it.

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