autotask_update_contract_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial update behavior ('Pass only fields you want to change'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention permissions, return values, side effects, or error handling. The description adds some value beyond the schema but is not thorough.

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: one sentence naming the action and a brief instruction. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word serves a purpose. No wasted text.

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?

For a simple update operation with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It assumes domain knowledge (what a ContractService line is) and does not explain the update behavior beyond partial updates. With no annotations, more detail on return values or error states would improve completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. The general instruction about partial updates applies to all parameters but does not detail individual semantics.

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 'Update an existing ContractService line on a Contract,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'autotask_create_contract_service' and other update tools by focusing on updating a contract service line.

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?

The instruction 'Pass only fields you want to change' provides clear context on partial updates. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, sibling tool names (like 'create_contract_service') imply when to use this tool vs creating. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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