Update contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important mutation traits: it is a write operation, it requires a two-step preview/confirm flow using a token, and the add_* fields are additive because 'existing ones are kept'. It omits authorization requirements, what happens to unspecified fields, and error/return 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?

Two tight sentences: purpose and scope first, write workflow second. Every clause carries information (what is updated, what is appended, that the operation is gated), with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 13-parameter nested mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical preview/confirm gate and additive semantics but supplies no parameter-level guidance, no permission requirements, and no indication of where the confirm token comes from. The most important behavior is present, yet the description is thin for the tool's complexity.

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 8% (only confirm is documented), so the description must compensate. It hints at only a few parameters ('basic details' for name/title, add_email/add_phone/add_address), leaving contact_id, company_id, first_name/last_name/prefix, sales_tax_number, custom_field_values, and the nested address object entirely unexplained.

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 specific verb (Updates) and resource (a contact's basic details), and enumerates the add-* behaviors (e-mail, phone, address) with the retention rule. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent tools like clio_contact_create or clio_contact_get, so there is no sibling routing, but the function itself is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly describes the write workflow: preview first, then confirm with the token from the preview, which tells an agent how to sequence calls. It does not say when to prefer this over clio_contact_create or how to scope partial updates, and 'preview first' sits in mild tension with the schema's note that confirm=true should be used directly when the request is complete.

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