Update contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation shape is conveyed structurally. The description adds the required contracts:write scope, which is genuine value beyond the annotations, but it does not explain partial-update semantics or why a mere field update is flagged destructive.

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?

Two tight sentences with the operation front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted, though there is little content to structure.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with full schema coverage but no output schema, the description covers identification and auth but omits whether unspecified fields are left untouched (partial vs full replacement) and what the destructiveHint implies. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so every field (title, category, dates, annual_cost, quality_score, etc.) is already documented in the schema. The description contributes only "by ID," which the schema's required id field already conveys, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing contract") and scopes it to a single record by ID, which distinguishes it from the create/delete/get contract siblings. It doesn't differentiate from the other update_* family members, but the resource noun is 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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the scope note, and no alternatives named. An agent gets no help deciding between this and, say, bulk_update or update_contract_document beyond the plain resource name.

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