update_contract_template

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. It only states the basic action (update) and that the template must exist, but does not disclose effects, permissions, reversibility, or partial update semantics. This is nearly tautological with the tool name.

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 concise sentence that states the purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, fitting the standard for conciseness.

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 the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal but still leaves gaps: it doesn't explain what fields can be updated (though schema lists name), any prerequisites like authentication, or what response to expect. It is barely adequate for a basic update operation.

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 both parameters (id and name), so the schema fully documents them. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable per the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 template' uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('contract template'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_contract_template and delete_contract_template. It also specifies the target is an existing template, which adds nuance.

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 create_contract_template or delete_contract_template. The purpose is implied by the verb 'update', but there are no explicit usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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