Update Contact

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying optimistic locking via a version field. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, which aligns with updates. There is no contradiction; the description reinforces the non-readOnly nature and provides safety semantics.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering the action and a critical requirement. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it efficient for agent scanning.

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 update tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the version field necessity. However, it could mention that the contact must exist before updating, but this is implicit from 'existing contact'. Overall, sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (id and body). The description repeats that the body must include the version field, which is already in the schema description 'Contact JSON with version field'. It does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 action 'Update' on the resource 'existing contact'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lexware_create_contact, lexware_get_contact, lexware_delete_contact, etc., by specifying the update operation and mentioning the version field for optimistic locking.

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 explicitly requires the body to include a version field for optimistic locking, providing specific usage guidance. However, it does not contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. create) or mention prerequisites like the contact must exist. Still, the context is clear enough for most agents.

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