crm_update_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the object doesn't exist, whether updates are partial or complete, if there are rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. While it lacks detail, every word earns its place by communicating the core function without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 3 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how it differs from the many similar sibling tools. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage and 3 required parameters, the description provides no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name. The schema shows objectType with enum values and a properties object, but the description doesn't explain what these mean, what format properties should take, or how objectId is obtained. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Update an existing CRM object' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('CRM object'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what constitutes a 'CRM object' and doesn't distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools like crm_update_company, crm_update_contact, or crm_batch_update_objects, which all perform similar update operations on CRM entities.

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. With numerous sibling tools like crm_update_company, crm_update_contact, crm_update_lead, and crm_batch_update_objects, there's no indication of when this generic 'update_object' is preferred over the more specific tools or batch operations. No prerequisites, constraints, or comparison context is provided.

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