teamleader_update_contact

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing contact' without explaining whether this is a partial update (fields not specified preserved) or a full replacement, what permissions are required, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the response contains. For a mutating operation with 9 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids redundancy and fluff. However, it is so brief that it omits valuable context, but for conciseness alone it earns a strong score.

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 (9 parameters, mutation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not mention update semantics, validation rules, or the effect on omitted fields. An agent would need to make assumptions or consult other documentation to use this correctly, making it inadequate for autonomous invocation.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional meaning about parameter relationships, dependencies, or interpretation beyond what the schema already states. It does not compensate for any schema gaps because there are none.

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 states a specific action ('Update') on a specific resource ('existing contact'), clearly distinguishing this from create/delete/tag operations. However, it does not differentiate among the many other update tools (update_company, update_task, etc.) beyond the resource name, so it is clear but not exemplary.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, tags could be assigned via teamleader_tag_contact instead, but the description does not mention this or any other context for choosing this tool. An agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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