contracts_updateUpdate fields on a contract. Status: Draft|Active|Terminated|Completed. Setting status to Terminated does not itself run Matrix' termination workflow - do that in the UI if notice periods or credit notes apply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| deal_id | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| contract_id | Yes | ||
| customer_id | No | ||
| signed_date | No | ||
| contract_value | No | ||
| reference_number | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it lists valid status values and explicitly warns about the limited effect of setting Terminated. This is valuable because the annotations only say the operation is not read-only and not destructive. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 two compact sentences. The first states the core action, and the second delivers an important operational caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical guidance is front-loaded.
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 11 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description leaves too much unexplained. Only status semantics are addressed; required contract_id and the meaning of the many mutable fields are omitted, making the tool under-specified for an agent to use confidently.
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 must compensate. It documents the status parameter's allowed values, but the other ten parameters (contract_id, title, deal_id, currency, end_date, etc.) receive no explanation beyond their names. This is a significant gap for an 11-parameter tool.
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 the operation clearly: "Update fields on a contract." It uses a specific verb and resource, and the status documentation adds scope. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from contracts_create or contracts_get, but the intent is unmistakable.
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 a clear when-not and an alternative for one important edge case: setting status to Terminated does not run the termination workflow, so the UI should be used when notice periods or credit notes apply. It does not provide broader guidance on when to use this tool versus create/get variants, but the update semantics are reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.
The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.
With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.
The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.