update_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Update' but does not disclose permissions, idempotency, partial vs full update behavior, or what happens when optional fields are set to null. For a mutation without annotations, more is needed.

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: one line for the action, then a clean parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is frontloaded.

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 that the tool has an output schema and only 6 parameters, the description covers the basics well. However, it omits details about partial updates and error cases, which are minor gaps for a simple update tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by listing each parameter with a brief explanation (e.g., 'contact_id: The unique ID of the contact to update'). This goes beyond the schema's type/title, though it doesn't provide format constraints or defaults.

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 'Update an existing contact in Crelate', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes this from 'create_contact' because it's an update operation, and the tool name reinforces this.

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 when modifying a contact but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like 'create_contact' or 'get_contact'. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., contact must exist) or when not to use this tool.

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