outlook_update_contact

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

The description discloses the 'partial patch' behavior, which is a key behavioral trait beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false indicates write, destructiveHint=false indicates not destructive). It adds value by clarifying that only provided fields change, preventing full-overwrite assumptions.

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 (9 words) that front-loads the action and key behavior. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple patch tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential behavior but misses details like expected outcomes, error states, or how to obtain contact_id. Sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only says 'only provided fields change' without explaining individual parameters (email, phone, etc.) or their types/constraints. Minimal added 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 verb 'Update' and resource 'contact', and specifies 'partial patch — only provided fields change'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like outlook_create_contact (creation) and outlook_delete_contact (deletion).

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining contact_id from list_contacts) or when not to use it (e.g., for full replacement). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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