update_contract_cadence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and excels. It discloses critical behavioral traits: full replacement semantics (not merging), lack of revision/history table, automatic updated_at stamping, and that reminders are only stored, not sent. These go far beyond any schema.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose first, then cadence shape, then critical behavioral warnings. Every sentence carries vital information—no filler, no repetition of schema defaults. It is front-loaded with the most important scoping statement.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested object, full replacement, idempotency, no history), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the full-replacement danger, the historical anomaly of the version column, the automatic timestamp behavior, and the reminder non-delivery. No output schema exists, but for an update tool the description provides sufficient context without needing to detail return values.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial semantic meaning beyond the schema: full-replacement behavior (clear risk of losing unspecified fields), auto_duty's explicit-consent requirement and default false, prep_rhythm's meaning, and the automatic updated_at insertion. It also references skill docs for deeper semantics.

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 a precise verb+resource: '只改一份已签合同的 cadence(节奏条款), 不动其他任何条款、不必重签.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_contract_coverage and void_contract, and explains the tool's raison d'être.

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?

It explicitly states when to use (modify cadence on an existing signed contract) and when not to (do not change other clauses, no need to re-sign). It also explains the economic rationale—'改约成本必须低于立约'—and implies the alternative of re-signing, making the usage context unmistakable.

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