End Contract

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: 'This action cannot be undone' and the requirement to ensure work and payments are settled. This goes beyond the generic annotation and makes the irreversible nature concrete.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, but the entire 'Args' section duplicates the input schema almost verbatim. The Returns and Important lines are useful, yet the redundancy keeps it from being as tight as it could be.

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 destructive 5-parameter tool with no output schema, this description covers required args, the reason enum, return expectation, and irreversibility warning. It could provide a more precise return shape, but the confirmation is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description repeats the parameter list and reason enum but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as rating bounds or comment max length already being defined.

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 'End an active contract,' a specific verb and resource, then clarifies 'Close a contract and optionally leave feedback.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/list tools like upwork_get_contract and upwork_list_contracts.

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 implies when to use it through 'active contract' and the warning 'Make sure all work is complete and payments are settled,' but it never explicitly names alternatives or says when not to use this tool. Guidance is present but left to inference.

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