autotask_update_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the PATCH method and partial update behavior, and provides a picklist reference for status. However, it does not describe any side effects, required permissions, immutability constraints, or validation rules for the 32 parameters. More behavioral context is needed for a complex entity.

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 two short sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the operation and behavior, the second provides a quick reference. Every word is purposeful, and it is well 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?

Given the complexity (32 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat brief. It covers the general PATCH pattern but doesn't explain the response format or provide guidance on common field interactions. For a tool with many fields, more contextual completeness would be beneficial, but it is not entirely inadequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the general note that only fields to change need be passed and that everything except id is optional, plus a specific enum hint for status. This adds marginal value beyond the schema descriptions, but does not provide significant additional semantics for the other fields.

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 (update), resource (Contract), method (PATCH), and emphasizes partial update semantics. It distinguishes from create by specifying 'Update an existing Contract'. The sibling tools include autotask_create_contract, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use (to update existing contracts) but does not explicitly exclude creation or searching. It provides context for partial updates and status values, but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear enough given sibling tool names.

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