nworks_contact_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds practical context by stating the OAuth requirement and clarifying that payload contains only fields to modify (partial update). No contradiction with annotations.

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 short, focused sentences. The first states the primary function, the second explains the payload and authentication. No redundant or filler content.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: purpose, ID resolution, payload semantics, and auth. It omits explicit handling of the replace parameter or error cases, but those are partially covered by the schema and annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining that the payload should contain only the fields to modify and that contactId can be resolved via contact_list. It does not detail the replace parameter, but the schema covers it.

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 opens with '기존 연락처를 수정합니다' (modifies an existing contact), which clearly states a specific verb and resource. It also references nworks_contact_list for ID lookup, distinguishing it from contact_create and contact_delete.

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 implies when to use this tool (for existing contacts) and explicitly mentions how to obtain the contactId via nworks_contact_list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear.

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