Update an existing contact's details in BoondManager, including name, email, phone, job title, department, and company. Use this tool to correct or refresh contact information.
Update an existing contact
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| No | |||
| phone | No | ||
| jobTitle | No | ||
| lastName | No | ||
| companyId | No | ||
| firstName | No | ||
| department | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. 'Update an existing contact' only restates the mutation; it does not reveal whether the update is partial/patch or full replacement, whether invalid fields are rejected, any authorization requirements, or side effects.
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 one clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It sacrifices informational depth rather than structure, but for conciseness it is efficient.
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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, a one-sentence description is incomplete. It fails to explain update semantics, the required id, the set of editable fields, and any constraints or return behavior an agent would need to call it correctly.
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 eight parameters with 0% description coverage and the tool description does not mention any parameter. It does not even indicate that id is required or that fields such as email, phone, and firstName are the updatable attributes, leaving the schema names to carry all meaning.
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 the core verb 'update' and the resource 'existing contact', which clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from boond_contacts_create. However, it is a standard CRUD phrasing shared with all *_update siblings and adds no contact-specific detail beyond the resource name.
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 word 'existing' implies the tool is for modifying a contact that already exists, which somewhat distinguishes it from create/search/get. There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of siblings, no mention of fetching the contact first, and no exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.