s4_sales_contract_updateUpdate header fields of an existing sales contract. Modify specific contract details by providing the contract number and field updates.
Update fields on an existing sales contract header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Header fields to update | |
| salesContract | Yes | Sales contract number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveness, but the description 'update fields' adds no behavioral context beyond that. No mention of side effects, validation, or field replacement behavior.
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?
One concise sentence, front-loaded purpose, no wasted words.
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?
Tool has 2 params, no output schema. Description is minimal; lacks details on valid fields for the 'fields' parameter and return value, which is insufficient given the open-ended nature.
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%, baseline 3 is appropriate. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema descriptions.
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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'fields on an existing sales contract header', which distinguishes it from create, list, and get sibling tools.
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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. Implied by naming and siblings, but lacks prerequisites, permissions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.