Modify an existing Deel contract by changing its title, amount, end date, job title, or scope of work with the contract ID.
Update an existing contract's details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | New contract title | |
| amount | No | New contract amount | |
| end_date | No | New end date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| job_title | No | New job title | |
| contract_id | Yes | The contract ID to update | |
| scope_of_work | No | Updated scope of work |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It does not disclose whether this is a partial update (omitted fields unchanged) or a replace, what permissions are required, or whether changes are reversible.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded and free of waste. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined compression.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits partial-update semantics, permission requirements, and error behavior, so an agent lacks enough context to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including contract_id and the updatable fields is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or behavioral detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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), making the operation unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like get_contract, create_contract, or terminate_contract, which an agent must distinguish between.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_contract, terminate_contract, or get_contract. No prerequisites or conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.