freeagent_update_contact

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. While 'update' implies mutation, it does not specify whether the operation is a full replacement or partial update, nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or idempotency. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond basic mutability.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly expanded without adding fluff to improve completeness.

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 the tool has 13 parameters (though only 1 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description should explain how the update works (e.g., partial vs full update) and what happens on success. It is too terse to provide a complete understanding, leaving gaps about behavior and response.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a human-readable description in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema carries the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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' and the resource 'contact', making the basic purpose evident. It distinguishes from other update tools (e.g., freeagent_update_invoice) by specifying the entity. However, it lacks additional context about what exactly can be updated, which would enhance clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like freeagent_create_contact or freeagent_delete_contact. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., the contact must exist) or scenarios where this tool is preferred. This omission makes it difficult for an agent to choose correctly.

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