update_employee_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it usefully discloses that this is a real write touching HR/payroll data and that the payload is forwarded verbatim with no server-side shaping or validation. It omits permissions/auth requirements, whether the update is full-replacement or partial, error behavior, and the response shape (no output schema exists).

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?

Two compact sentences with the mutation mode front-loaded before the resource, and the external reference link placed last where it will not crowd out the core signal. Nothing is wasted.

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 blind nested-object write against sensitive payroll data with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers risk but offloads the actual payload contract to an external URL the agent may not be able to fetch. The required fields of `data` are undocumented in both schema and description, which is a meaningful gap.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema. The description's only parameter claim — that `data` is sent verbatim as the request body — merely restates the schema's own text and adds no field-level meaning for the nested contract payload.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('updates an employee's contract') plus the system (Holded API v2), and the 'WRITE:' prefix immediately signals a mutation. It is distinguishable from the read sibling get_employee_contract, though it never names that sibling or any other alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_employee_contract or update_employee, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The 'affects real HR/payroll data' note is a caution about consequences rather than guidance for selecting the tool, leaving usage to inference.

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