Update GHL Contact

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable context by specifying that only provided fields are changed, meaning omitted fields remain untouched. This goes beyond the annotation's safety profile and helps the agent understand the update semantics, though it does not mention potential side effects like tag list replacement.

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, focused sentence that states the core action and the key usage rule. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant information, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 tool with 16 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the semantics of complex fields like customFields and tags. An agent would lack critical information for correct invocation, such as whether the API returns the updated contact or just an acknowledgment, and how to handle arrays and nested objects.

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 only 6%, so the description must compensate. It provides a general semantic: 'Only pass fields you want to change' indicates that all fields are optional and represent new values, which is helpful. However, it does not elaborate on specific parameter formats, such as the structure of customFields or how tags are handled (e.g., replace vs. append), leaving ambiguity for many of the 16 parameters.

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' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_contact and delete_contact by focusing on modifying an existing entity. The added 'Only pass fields you want to change' clarifies the partial-update semantics, making the purpose 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?

The phrase 'Only pass fields you want to change' implicitly guides when to use this tool (for updates) and implies not to use it for creation or full replacement. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, such as using ghl_create_contact for new contacts or ghl_add_contact_tags for tag-specific operations, so the guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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