update_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a partial update and explains how to restore a soft-deleted contract, but it omits permissions, side effects, overwrite behavior, and whether the operation is reversible.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds practical field examples and formatting rules. It is reasonably tight, though the field list is somewhat long and could be organized more clearly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers partial update semantics, field examples, formats, and restore behavior. It remains incomplete because contract_id semantics, authentication needs, error behavior, and return information are absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides useful examples of updatable fields under update_fields, including duration units and date format, plus the special is_deleted restore value. It does not explain the required contract_id parameter or the update_fields object structure.

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 and resource: 'Met à jour un contrat'. It also clarifies that only fields to modify should be passed, which sharpens the purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like create_contract or delete_contract.

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?

It gives operational guidance such as passing only fields to modify and using {'is_deleted': 0} to restore a trashed contract. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like create_contract, delete_contract, or other update_* tools.

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