update_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states side effects: resending to the same address, replacement invalidating the old link, and the response containing link statuses. This goes well beyond a generic 'updates a contract' statement.

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 three sentences: first the core action, then critical behavior, then response format. Every sentence carries necessary information with no filler or repetition. This is an excellent, front-loaded 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?

Given full schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main operational aspects: what actions apply, link resend/replace behavior, and response statuses. It omits only minor details like error handling or authentication prerequisites, which are not required for the tool's complexity level.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning for the signers parameter by explaining email replacement/resend behavior and the finalize flag's trigger effect, which the schema itself does not fully express. This meaningful supplementation justifies above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase ('Rename, retag or finalize a draft, and send or resend signing links') identifying both the resource and the set of distinct operations. This clearly distinguishes update_contract from siblings like create_contract, get_contract, and delete_contract.

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 description strongly implies when to use this tool: when modifying an existing contract's title/tags, finalizing a draft, or managing signer links. It also explains the resend-vs-replace behavior, guiding the caller. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use create_contract for new contracts,' so it stops short of a 5.

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