pws_update_contract

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds context that the tool applies to active player-company contracts and supports a preview mode, but it does not explain how preview differs from confirmed modification or what destructive side effects may occur.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with a clear action verb, and most words add meaning. The phrase 'through the official PWS action' is filler, but overall the length is appropriate for a brief definition.

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?

This tool has a nested changes object, a preview/confirmed dual workflow, a destructive annotation, and no output schema, so it carries high operational complexity. The description omits nearly all of that: it does not enumerate supported terms, explain the preview gate, describe return values, or address error/validation behavior. An agent cannot reliably call it correctly from this description alone.

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%, yet the description provides no parameter-level detail. It does not explain the preview/confirmed workflow, the meaning of the changes object, brand's special empty-string value, or any of the nested fields. The schema property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the complete absence of parameter descriptions.

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 names a specific action (PREVIEW OR MODIFY), a resource (an active player-company contract), and a scope (supported terms and management settings). It is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from read-only contract tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 phrase 'PREVIEW OR MODIFY' implies the tool should be used when the agent needs to preview or change contract terms, and 'supported terms' hints at a limited scope. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives like pws_get_worker_contracts or pws_sign_worker.

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