Update contacts

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

Annotations include openWorldHint and idempotentHint, already conveying that additional fields are allowed and retries are safe. The description adds the essential requirement that each object must include id, but it does not disclose whether unspecified fields are preserved, how partial updates behave, or what the response contains.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every phrase adds operational value: the scope is clear and the id requirement is stated outright.

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 bulk update tool, the description barely covers prerequisites (id) and scope, while ignoring response format or behavior on missing fields. Given there is no output schema and the input schema is very generic, more context would be expected, but the openWorldHint and idempotentHint help slightly.

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?

The schema for 'contacts' is a generic array of free-form objects with no required per-item fields, so the description's note that 'Each object must include id' adds crucial meaning. However, beyond that requirement, it leaves the actual fields and their semantics to the Comma API, offering minimal compensation for the 0% schema coverage rate.

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 tool updates one or more contacts, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling kommo_contacts_update_one by indicating batch capacity ('one or more'), though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 'one or more' implies a batch update use case, and 'Each object must include id' provides a key precondition. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over the single-contact update tool or what other prerequisites might exist.

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