crm_update_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing CRM object' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about required permissions, whether the update is partial or complete, validation rules, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified properties. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it lacks necessary detail, what's present is structured concisely without redundancy or fluff.

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 3 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what CRM objects are, what fields can be updated, how updates are processed, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant trial and error.

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 for completely undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'CRM object' which loosely relates to the objectType parameter but provides no explanation of what objectType values mean, what objectId format is expected, or what the properties object should contain. With 3 required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 'Update an existing CRM object' clearly states the action (update) and resource (CRM object), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes a 'CRM object' or differentiate this tool from its many sibling tools like crm_update_company, crm_update_contact, crm_update_lead, or crm_batch_update_objects. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity in this crowded namespace.

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. With numerous sibling tools for updating specific object types (companies, contacts, leads) and batch operations, the agent receives no help in selecting this generic update tool over more specialized ones. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparative context.

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