Update a contact's email, password, or phone number. Adding a phone number enables SMS 2FA for that contact.
Update an additional contact (whmcs/update_contact): email, password, phone. Providing a phone enables SMS 2FA.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Contact email | ||
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to run the operation. | |
| password2 | No | New contact password | |
| contact_id | Yes | Contact ID | |
| phonenumber | No | Phone (enables SMS 2FA) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Input schema / properties / contact_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"ID контакта"New value: +"Contact ID"Input schema / properties / email / descriptionPrevious value: -"Email контакта"New value: +"Contact email"Input schema / properties / password2 / descriptionPrevious value: -"Новый пароль контакта"New value: +"New contact password"Input schema / properties / phonenumber / descriptionPrevious value: -"Телефон (включает 2FA по SMS)"New value: +"Phone (enables SMS 2FA)"v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true). The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: supplying a phone number enables SMS 2FA, a side effect not visible elsewhere. It omits the required `confirm=true` gate and any sense of reversibility, so it is helpful but incomplete.
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 tight sentences with the mutating fields front-loaded and the notable side effect last. The internal '(whmcs/update_contact)' breadcrumb is slightly noisy but costs little.
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?
For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage of prerequisites, the description should at minimum mention that `confirm` must be true to run. It covers the field list but leaves the agent to discover the required confirmation flag from the schema alone.
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 100%, so the schema already names every parameter. The description adds meaning only for `phonenumber` (enables SMS 2FA); it says nothing about the required `confirm` flag or that `password2` is a password change. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Update an additional contact') and enumerates the mutable fields (email, password, phone). It is clearly distinct from add_contact and delete_contact by the verb, though it never contrasts itself with update_billing_client, the nearest sibling.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (update_billing_client, add_contact, delete_contact) in a sibling list full of near-identical contact/account mutations. The word 'additional' hints at scope but the agent must infer everything else.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.