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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required scope ('contracts:write'), which is useful auth context. However, it doesn't clarify update semantics (partial vs full replacement) or what gets overwritten, which would be helpful given destructiveHint=true.

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 concise sentences with no waste, front-loading the action and then the scope requirement. Efficient.

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 mutation tool with 11 parameters and destructiveHint=true, the description is too sparse. It doesn't specify whether this is a partial or full update, what happens to omitted fields, or any rate limits. While annotations cover safety hints, the agent lacks critical behavioral details needed to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so all 11 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'by ID', adding no parameter semantics beyond the required id. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('contract'), and adds scope ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_contract and delete_contract, though it does not name them. The resource is unambiguous.

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 other update tools (e.g., update_contract_document or bulk_update). Only implies usage by 'existing contract by ID'. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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