replace_contract_document_file_from_template

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Replace', which implies mutation but does not clarify whether the original file is overwritten, whether a new revision is created, what template is used, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a destructive-sounding operation.

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 a single, clear sentence. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must fully explain its behavior. It does not, leaving key questions unanswered (e.g., how the template is selected, what 'replace' does to the existing file, whether it is reversible, what the response contains). For a mutation tool with minimal schema, this is insufficient.

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% for the two parameters (contract_id, document_id), but the descriptions are trivial ('Contract ID', 'Document ID'). The tool description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action (Replace), the object (contract document file), and the source (from a template). It differentiates from siblings like create_contract_document_from_template and replace_contract_document_file by combining both concepts, though it does not elaborate on what 'from a template' precisely entails.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools exist (e.g., replace_contract_document_file, create_contract_document_from_template) but no differentiation is offered.

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