update_api_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral implications. It states that the tool updates title/version but does not mention whether it modifies the file in place, what happens if the contract name does not exist, whether changes are reversible, or if other fields are preserved. This leaves the agent without critical mutation context.

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, focused sentence with no redundant information. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, which is appropriate for a straightforward update tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, this description is too sparse. It omits return values, error behavior, and important usage constraints, leaving significant gaps 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'title' and 'version' are the update targets and 'name' identifies the existing contract. However, it does not explain that title and version are optional (only name is required), nor does it specify any constraints or the need to provide at least one update field.

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 identifies the tool as an update operation ('Update') on a specific resource ('existing local OpenAPI contract') and specifies the fields involved ('title or version'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_api_contract and delete_api_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 word 'existing' implies this is for contracts that already exist, providing some context that this is not for new contracts. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over create/delete, nor any exclusions or alternative tool names.

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