update_contact_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool updates a field, which implies mutation, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, or whether changes are immediately visible or reversible. The description only lists parameters without elaborating on the update behavior, leaving the agent to infer the consequences.

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 concise, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean, structured list of arguments. Every line provides needed information without excess. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward update operation.

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 tool's moderate complexity and lack of annotations, the description covers the purpose and parameters but omits behavioral context such as error handling, prerequisites, or effects on related data. An output schema exists, so return values are documented, but the description still lacks completeness regarding the implications of the update operation. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must explain parameters. It does so by providing brief meanings for each parameter, such as 'presentation_json: JSON string for new presentation settings' and 'group_id: New group ID to move the field into.' This adds value beyond the bare schema names, though some descriptions (e.g., field_id: 'The field ID') are redundant. Overall, it compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Update an existing custom contact field.' This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like create_contact_field and delete_contact_field, as it specifically targets updating existing fields.

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 implies usage for modifying existing custom contact fields but does not explicitly provide when-to-use versus alternatives. It does not mention that create_contact_field should be used for new fields, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative scenarios. The context is clear enough for a simple update but lacks explicit guidance.

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