Update single contact

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or replaces the entire contact, what happens to unspecified fields, or error/response behavior. Since annotations do not cover destructive effects, the description carries this burden but fails to address it.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core action and target.

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 mutation tool with an open-world nested object, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not explain update semantics (partial vs full), error handling, return values, or how to construct a valid contact object, making the tool difficult to invoke correctly.

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 50% (the contact object has a vague reference to the Kommo API, and id has no description). The description merely says 'by ID,' adding minimal clarity about the id parameter but nothing about the structure or required fields of the contact object, which is an open-world nested object.

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 verb (update), resource (contact), and scope (single, by ID). This distinguishes it from list/get/create tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling kommo_contacts_update (which likely updates multiple contacts).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kommo_contacts_update, nor any context about prerequisites such as auth, existing contact ID, or behavior on missing IDs. The only implied usage is that an ID is required.

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