hedera_update_contract

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

The description transparently states the tool builds an unsigned transaction and requires admin key signing. This clarifies that execution is separate and the tool is not directly mutative. No annotations exist, so description carries the burden well.

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 no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a critical condition.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains purpose and a key condition but lacks explanation of the return value, how to execute the built transaction, and the role of 'payerAccountId'.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain all parameters. It only mentions 'memo' and 'admin key' (the latter not a parameter), leaving 'payerAccountId' unexplained. 'contractId' is required but not detailed. Admin key is mentioned as a requirement but not as a parameter.

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 clearly states the specific action: building an unsigned update to a contract's memo or admin key. It distinguishes from siblings like hedera_delete_contract or hedera_query_contract by specifying the editable fields and the signing requirement.

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?

Usage is implied through the description: use when updating memo or admin key with admin key signing. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other contract tools (e.g., hedera_execute_contract) or alternatives is provided.

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