wafeq_contacts_update

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description is consistent with them. The description adds the PUT method, which implies idempotent full-replacement behavior, but it does not disclose that omitted body fields with defaults may be overwritten, nor any other operational behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 brief and front-loads the key signal (WRITE · PUT /contacts/{id}/), which is good. But it contains redundancy: 'Update contact' and 'Endpoint for updating an existing contact' say the same thing, and 'updates data' is generic filler. A single crisp sentence would be tighter.

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 a complex nested body, no output schema, and a closely-related sibling (wafeq_contacts_partial_update), the description is incomplete. It never explains PUT-vs-PATCH semantics, what happens to unspecified optional fields, or what the response contains. The rich schema helps, but the critical selection question between update and partial_update is left unanswered.

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 67% schema description coverage, the description itself adds nothing about parameters, but the schema compensates well: idempotency_key has an excellent explanation (header name, auto-generated UUID, retry safety), and the nested body fields are individually documented. The description's silence on parameters is acceptable because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update contact', 'Endpoint for updating an existing contact') and includes the HTTP method PUT /contacts/{id}/, which hints at full-update semantics. However, it never explicitly names or distinguishes itself from the sibling wafeq_contacts_partial_update, so the differentiation is only implicit via the PUT marker.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over wafeq_contacts_create, wafeq_contacts_partial_update, or wafeq_contacts_retrieve. The 'PUT' in the header line implies full replacement versus PATCH, but the description never states this or gives a selection rule, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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