Update a contract template's title, labels, or document content in one call. Keep templates accurate and ready for e-signature workflows.
Updates the title, labels or the content of a contract template.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | The new title of the template. | |
| labels | No | List of labels to be assigned to the template. | |
| document_elements | No | The content of the template like headers, text, and images for the document. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the affected fields and does not state whether the document content is fully replaced or merged, whether the update is reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
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, concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every part contributes to stating the tool's action and scope.
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?
The tool has a complex document_elements schema, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides no further context. It omits update semantics, target identification, and return behavior, leaving an agent under-informed for a mutation operation.
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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description in the schema. The description only echoes the parameter names without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Updates'), the resource ('contract template'), and the affected aspects ('title, labels or the content'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as create_template, delete_template, query_template, and list_templates by making its update role explicit.
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 update purpose implies this tool is for modifying an existing template rather than creating or deleting one, matching the sibling set. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over create_template or any other alternative, leaving usage largely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.