Update an existing Freshsales contact by ID to edit names, email, phone, tags, or status, ensuring CRM records stay current.
Update an existing contact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| No | |||
| state | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| owner_id | No | ||
| job_title | No | ||
| last_name | No | ||
| company_id | No | ||
| contact_id | Yes | Contact ID | |
| first_name | No | ||
| work_number | No | ||
| custom_field | No | ||
| mobile_number | No | ||
| lead_source_id | No | ||
| contact_status_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update an existing contact' and omits whether this is a partial or full update, permission requirements, reversibility, which fields are mutable, and error behavior.
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 single sentence is concise but severely underspecified for a 16-parameter mutation tool. Conciseness is not the issue; lack of appropriate sizing and front-loaded detail is.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, 16 parameters at 6% coverage, and a nested object, the description is far from complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It provides no behavioral, parameter, or usage context.
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 schema has 16 parameters with only 6% description coverage (only contact_id is described), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It does not clarify the updatable fields, the nested custom_field object, or any constraints.
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 clear verb (update) and resource (contact), so the basic purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling update tools such as update_lead or update_account, which is necessary given the crowded sibling set.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_lead or update_account, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the contact must already exist) are stated. The description merely implies usage from the verb 'update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.