update_contacts

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

No annotations are provided. The description indicates a mutation ('bulk-update') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites or merges customParams, authorization requirements, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 short and includes an Args block that adds structure, but it could be more concise by avoiding the docstring style. It is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description does not fully cover return values, error handling, or behavioral details for a bulk operation. It is incomplete for an AI agent to reliably invoke.

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 partially compensates by detailing the structure of the contacts parameter (target and customParams). However, it does not explain valid values for target (phone_or_id) or the exact format, leaving 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?

The description states a specific action: bulk-update contacts' custom parameters. It clearly identifies the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like assign_contact_teams or update_conversation_status.

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 the structure for the contacts argument but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like assign_contact_teams. No context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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