Update A Compliance Document.

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds that it returns the modified object on success, but does not disclose any side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. Beyond annotations, the description provides limited additional behavioral context.

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 concise with two sentences plus endpoint information. It front-loads the purpose and includes only relevant details (partial update, required parameters). Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description mentions returning the modified object, but with 16 parameters and no output schema, more details could be helpful (e.g., how array fields like attachment_ids behave). The schema descriptions cover individual parameters, but overall completeness is adequate but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the required parameters (project_id, contract_id, id) without adding any semantics beyond what the schema already provides. No additional explanation for array fields or behavior of body parameters.

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 (compliance document/Commitments), including that only supplied fields are changed (partial update). It distinguishes from siblings like create and show by explicitly mentioning 'existing'. The title and description are well-aligned.

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 context: use to update an existing Commitments with partial updates. It lists required parameters, aiding usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for creation or deletion), though sibling tool names imply these alternatives.

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