autotask_update_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the operation is a PATCH and provides status values. There is no information about required permissions, idempotency, error behavior, or side effects, which are critical for a mutation tool.

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 sentences long. The first sentence states the purpose and method, and the second provides the key usage rule and a parameter mapping. Every word earns its place; no waste.

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 has 32 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage pattern (partial update) and provides a critical parameter mapping. However, it could mention the return value or any constraints, but the completeness is adequate for an update 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that all fields except id are optional and by decoding the status field (1=In Effect, 0=Inactive). This goes beyond the schema descriptions and enhances the agent's understanding.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('Contract'), and the HTTP method ('PATCH'). It explicitly mentions that only fields to change need to be passed, differentiating from create operations and establishing the tool's specific use case.

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 provides a usage tip ('Pass only fields you want to change') and a key rule ('everything except id is optional'), but it does not compare this tool to sibling tools like autotask_create_contract or autotask_search_contracts. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer alternatives.

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