replace_contract_document_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Replace' implies a destructive/overwriting operation, but no details are given about whether the old file is retained, if a new revision is created, whether the operation is permanent, or if any confirmation is needed. The description adds no context beyond what the name already implies.

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 and to the point, with no wasted words. However, it is a single sentence that could be considered terse, lacking any additional structure (e.g., usage notes, caveats) that would make it more helpful without becoming verbose.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only restates the action. It fails to explain how the file content is provided (the schema only has IDs, so there must be a separate upload mechanism), what happens to the existing file, or any side effects. The description is inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke this tool beyond knowing the basic intent.

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%: both 'contract_id' and 'document_id' have descriptions in the schema. The tool's description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents them adequately. Baseline is 3 and no additional value is provided by the description.

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 'replace' and the resource 'the file on a contract document', making the primary action evident. It could further distinguish itself from the sibling 'replace_contract_document_file_from_template', but still conveys the core intent unambiguously.

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?

No usage context is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives, what type of file is expected, whether it is meant for updating an existing document versus creating a new one, or any prerequisites. It only restates the action without guiding the agent on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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