update_contact

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

The description adds one behavioral detail: 'Only non-null fields are sent.' This is useful but does not disclose authorization needs, error behavior, or whether the operation is destructive. With no annotations, more context (e.g., return value, prerequisites) would improve transparency.

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?

Two sentences and 11 words: highly efficient and front-loaded. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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's complexity (7 parameters) and existence of an output schema, the description lacks context about prerequisites (contact must exist), relation to get_contact, and return value. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, with each parameter already described. The description's note about non-null fields applies globally, not per-parameter, adding marginal semantic value. Baseline 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 resource (contact), distinguishing it from create_contact and other update tools for different entities. The phrase 'Update a contact' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool compared to alternatives like create_contact or other update tools. The distinction is implied by the name and sibling list, but no exclusions or contextual recommendations are provided.

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