Update an existing contract's type, status, dates, hourly rate, or resource assignment to keep contract records current in BoondManager.
Update an existing contract
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| type | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| endDate | No | ||
| startDate | No | ||
| hourlyRate | No | ||
| resourceId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Update an existing contract' only implies a write operation; it doesn't specify partial vs full update, what happens to omitted fields, permission requirements, or idempotency. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler. Every word earns its place; it is concise and front-loaded.
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?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It doesn't explain update semantics, allowed fields, or response behavior, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool 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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 7 parameters. It doesn't clarify the enums, date formats, or how fields behave on update, failing to compensate for the undocumented schema.
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 a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('contract'), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from contract creation. It doesn't name sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus boond_contracts_create or boond_contracts_get. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives mentioned, so usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.