ghl_contact_update_task

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

Adds value beyond annotations by noting the regression verification for assignedTo, partial update behavior, and OAuth scopes. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive, so the description provides additional context without contradiction.

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?

Concise at 3-4 sentences, front-loaded with key points (regression verification, partial updates). Could be slightly streamlined (e.g., regression note could be secondary), but overall efficient 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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain the response format or content. It also does not mention error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., contact existence). The complexity of nested parameters partially mitigated by schema, but more context would improve completeness.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds explicit detail that all body properties are optional partial updates, which reinforces the schema and clarifies intended use.

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 it updates a task for a contact, distinguishes from the create sibling by noting all fields are optional on update, and provides the HTTP method and endpoint. This gives the agent a precise understanding of the tool's function.

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?

Contrasts with create by highlighting partial updates, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives beyond the create tool. The guidance is implicit and helpful but not exhaustive.

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