autotask_update_contract

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the PATCH behavior and optionality of fields, but does not detail authentication needs, error handling, response format, or side effects. Adequate for a simple update but lacks depth.

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?

Three concise sentences: verb+resource, usage instruction, and parameter note. No redundant information; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 32 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the response structure, error handling, or behavioral constraints like idempotency. Adequate for a straightforward update but could be more comprehensive.

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 each parameter is already described. The description adds value by mapping status values (1=In Effect, 0=Inactive), which is not in the schema. Baseline 3 raised to 4 for this extra clarification.

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 action ('Update an existing Contract in Autotask') and specifies the HTTP method (PATCH). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'autotask_create_contract' by targeting existing contracts.

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?

Indicates that only fields to change should be passed and all except id are optional, providing partial update guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over 'autotask_create_contract' or prerequisites like existence of the contract.

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