postgrid_update_contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful transparency by stating that only provided fields are updated, signaling merge-like rather than full-replace semantics. It does not disclose response behavior, side effects, or error conditions, so it is not fully transparent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main operation is front-loaded, and the critical partial-update behavior is stated immediately. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool: it names the resource, identifies the update operation, and explains the merge behavior. With 13 parameters fully documented in the schema, the description need not repeat field details. It could mention the response format or failure behavior, but the absence is not critical for basic invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond individual parameter labels by clarifying that omitted fields are preserved, which is essential for correctly understanding optional parameters. This partial-update semantic makes the description valuable for parameter usage.

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 identifies the action ('Update'), the resource ('existing PostGrid contact'), and the key partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields will be updated'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, list, and get.

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 when to use the tool: when an existing contact needs modification. It also communicates that only supplied fields change, which helps avoid accidentally wiping data. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the full usage boundary from sibling names.

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