contracts_update

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

The description discloses a notable behavioral trait: the absence of a 'notes' field and the inaccessibility of the UI notes section. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries a heavy burden; it fails to mention whether the update is destructive, what happens to omitted fields, or any required permissions, leaving significant gaps.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately convey the purpose and a critical behavioral note. No words are wasted, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It only provides a small behavioral note and a one-line purpose statement, leaving out return values, error handling, required permissions, and the semantics of partial updates. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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 only 8% (only 'id' described). The description adds a clarification that 'description' is the sole text field and that there is no 'notes' parameter, which adds some meaning. But it ignores the other 11 parameters, offering no explanation for fields like customer_id, name, status, etc., thus compensating poorly for the low 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 states 'Update a contract', which clearly identifies the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like contracts_create or contracts_get. However, it does not specify whether updates are partial or full, missing a chance to clarify typical update semantics.

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 contracts_create or contracts_get. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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