Update contact task

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

The description discloses the partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields change'), which is valuable context beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. However, it does not describe other behavioral aspects like required permissions, side effects, or the return value. Given the annotations already indicate mutation, the description adds some context but not enough to be more than adequate.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action, followed by concrete examples and a key behavior note ('Only provided fields change'). There is no wasted wording, making it appropriately concise and structured.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, so the description should provide guidance on expected input formats (e.g., date format, assignee identifiers) and mention the response behavior. It covers neither, leaving agents to guess critical details. The example hints are insufficient for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining all parameters. It provides examples for dueDate, assignedTo, and completed, but does not cover title or body. It offers partial meaning through examples, but a 7-parameter tool with 0% coverage needs more explicit parameter explanations to avoid ambiguity.

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?

Description states a clear verb (update) and resource (contact task), provides concrete examples of what can be changed (completed, due date, assignee), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/delete/get task. It is not a tautology and conveys the core function effectively.

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 this tool versus alternatives like ghl_create_contact_task or ghl_get_contact_task. The description implies it is for modifying existing tasks, but it does not state when-not-to-use it or mention any competitors. Usage is left to inference.

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