update_contract

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency, but it only restates the action. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, whether the 'id' parameter is required, or any side effects such as validation or downstream impacts.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and complex update semantics. It does not earn its place as a helpful description because it omits key details.

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 is incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a rich set of sibling tools. It lacks context about required fields, behavior on partial updates, and the resource's lifecycle, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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%, as all 9 parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter details, but the baseline is set to 3 due to the high schema coverage.

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 'Update an existing contract' clearly states the verb (update) and the resource (contract). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_contract, get_contract, and delete_contract, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 such as archive_contract, delete_contract, or update_contract_document. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or context about typical use cases.

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