ghl_contact_update

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that tags are overwritten (a partial destructive behavior) and lists confirmed fields. However, it does not clarify whether the update is partial or full replacement, nor does it describe the return value or error conditions. Given no output schema, this is a moderate 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 front-loaded with a regression verification note that may be more relevant to developers than AI agents. It contains multiple details (regression, endpoint, OAuth scopes) but could be more concise. The structure is logical but wastes some characters on metadata.

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 complexity of the input schema (nested objects like dndSettings, customFields) and no output schema, the description provides critical tag behavior but lacks details on return values, error handling, and whether other fields are partially updated. Schema descriptions compensate, but the description alone is not fully complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for every property. The description does not add significant parameter semantics beyond the schema, except for the note about tags overwriting. Given high schema coverage, a baseline 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 'Update Contact. Update a contact using contactId.' and specifies the HTTP method (PUT) and endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting that the 'tags' field overwrites the full tag list, contrasting with incremental tag updates via ghl_contact_add_tags and ghl_contact_remove_tags.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives for tag management, directing to separate tools for incremental changes. It also mentions OAuth scopes (contacts.write) for authorization context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over other contact update methods like ghl_contact_upsert.

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