End an active contract by providing the contract ID and termination reason. Use it to finalize offboarding with optional last work day and severance details.
Terminate an active contract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contract_id | Yes | The contract ID to terminate | |
| last_day_of_work | No | Last day of work (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| severance_amount | No | Severance payment amount | |
| termination_reason | Yes | Reason for termination |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations carry only a title, so the description bears the full behavioral burden for a clearly destructive operation. It does not say whether termination is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to severance/last-day-of-work fields.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification as much as conciseness.
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?
A destructive, irreversible-sounding mutation with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain side effects, permissions, and irreversibility. None of that is present, so the definition is incomplete for the tool's complexity.
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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or conditional detail beyond that, so 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 (terminate) and resource (contract), scoped to 'active' contracts. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling mutators like update_contract or offboard_worker.
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 guidance on when to use this versus update_contract or offboard_worker, nor any prerequisites (e.g., contract must be active, approvals needed). The 'active' qualifier hints at a precondition but never states one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.