fiken_update_contact_person

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

The description only echoes the write nature implied by the tool name and annotation (readOnlyHint: false), adding no details about side effects, permission requirements, or idempotency. This is minimal behavioral disclosure beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core action without redundancy.

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 (6 parameters, nested object, no output schema) and a large set of sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what 'updating' entails, which fields are modifiable, or how to properly construct the request.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds no meaning to the six parameters, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone. No examples, constraints, or optionality hints are provided, severely limiting correct parameter usage.

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 ('Updates') and the resource ('a contact person'), directly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_contact_person', 'delete_contact_person', and 'get_contact_person'.

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 (e.g., update_contact for a company contact), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left without context for appropriate invocation.

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