crm_update_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'update' and 'validated properties,' hinting at mutation and validation, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether updates are reversible, error handling for invalid data, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('update an existing contact') and includes a key detail ('validated properties') without redundancy. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (mutation tool with nested parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, auth needs), parameter meanings, output format, and usage context. For a tool that modifies CRM data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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 description mentions 'validated properties,' which aligns with the 'properties' parameter in the schema, but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's structure. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no descriptions for parameters, yet the tool description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'contactId' is, the format of 'properties,' or the meaning of nested fields like 'lifecyclestage.' The baseline is 3 since the description hints at validation but doesn't detail parameter usage.

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 clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('existing contact'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'crm_create_contact' by specifying 'existing' and from 'crm_batch_update_contacts' by not mentioning batch operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'crm_update_company' or 'crm_update_lead', which are similar in structure but target different resources.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid contactId), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new contacts), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'crm_batch_update_contacts' for bulk operations or 'crm_update_company' for different entities. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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