Modify contact details in Freshdesk by specifying the contact ID and updating relevant fields. Streamline customer data management within the Freshdesk ecosystem.
Update a contact in Freshdesk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact_fields | Yes | ||
| contact_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only says 'Update a contact,' which merely restates the tool's name. It does not mention partial vs. full update semantics, required permissions, error conditions, or any side effects, leaving significant behavioral unknowns.
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, grammatically complete sentence, so it is structurally acceptable. However, it is under-specified—it provides only the bare minimum of information and lacks any detail that would aid the agent, making it more of a placeholder than a concise, informative statement.
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 that the tool has two parameters with a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain how the contact_fields object should be formatted, what the response contains, or any constraints, making it inadequate for a mutation tool in a complex domain like Freshdesk.
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 zero description coverage for its two parameters, and the tool description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. The description fails to explain the structure or purpose of contact_fields, which is a nested object and likely critical for correct usage. This is a total gap in parameter understanding.
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 tool updates a contact in Freshdesk, which is a specific verb+resource combination. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_ticket, update_agent, and update_contact_field, which target different resources.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify any prerequisites or scenarios where read tools like get_contact or search_contacts should be used first. There is no exclusionary or comparative information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.