autotask_update_contract_service

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It reveals that the update is partial ('Pass only fields you want to change'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors such as whether null values clear fields, required permissions, or side effects. This is a moderate disclosure.

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 remarkably concise: two succinct sentences that convey the core purpose and key usage behavior. Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous information. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the minimal necessary information. It covers the action and partial update behavior but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. This is adequate but not comprehensive for a complex tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters already have descriptions. The description adds value by reinforcing the partial update behavior ('Pass only fields you want to change'), but it does not provide new semantic information beyond the schema. With high coverage, a score of 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 it updates an existing ContractService line on a Contract, using specific verbs ('Update') and resources ('ContractService line on a Contract'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like autotask_create_contract_service by specifying 'existing' and from other update tools by naming the specific entity.

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 implicitly communicates when to use this tool (to update an existing ContractService line) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The sibling tool list includes create_contract_service for creation, so the context is clear, making it easy to deduce usage.

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