autotask_update_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the PATCH method and partial update behavior. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error conditions, but the core behavior (partial update) is transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

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 the complexity of 32 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspect of partial updates and optionality. It does not explain return values, but the lack of output schema makes this acceptable. Overall fairly complete for an update operation.

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 all parameters already have descriptions. The description adds marginal value by restating the optionality and status mapping, but these are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'Contract', and specifies it's a PATCH operation. The name and description distinguish it from sibling tools like autotask_create_contract and autotask_update_contract_service.

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 description provides clear guidance on partial updates: 'Pass only fields you want to change; everything except id is optional.' It also explains the status field values. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating a new contract.

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