rdstation_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 states 'existing contact,' which implies a precondition that the contact must already exist, but it does not mention whether updates are idempotent, what happens to unspecified fields, permission requirements, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to guide safe usage.

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, direct sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. For a simple update tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate, even though other dimensions lack depth.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema, but the description gives no details on how to construct the 'contact' object, what fields are supported, or what the response looks like. An agent would have to infer too much, making this incomplete for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention either parameter ('contact_id' or 'contact') or explain how to identify the contact or what fields can be updated. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent to guess the structure of the 'contact' object and the format of 'contact_id'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('fields of an existing contact in RD Station CRM'), and the verb differentiates it from sibling tools like create_contact, delete_contact, and get_contact. An agent can immediately identify what this tool does without cross-referencing.

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. It does not mention that it's for modifying existing contacts only, note prerequisites (e.g., the contact must already exist), or suggest when to use create or get instead. There is no indication of exclusions or conditions.

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