update_contract_document

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only repeats the verb 'update' without detailing behavior such as which fields can be modified, partial update semantics, error handling, or authentication requirements. This leaves the agent without crucial behavioral context for a mutating 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 sentence and is concise without filler. It is efficient and front-loaded, but it is so minimal that it sacrifices informative content, which justifies a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a crowded domain with similar tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify the specific update behavior (e.g., only 'name' is updatable) or differentiate it from replace_contract_document_file.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema itself provides semantics. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema is sufficiently descriptive.

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 that this tool updates an existing contract document, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like replace_contract_document_file or update_contract, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when to select this tool.

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