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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses key behavioral traits: the action is irreversible ('cannot be undone or edited'), the contract is 'permanent, immutable', and there is a turn-based constraint ('only the agent whose turn it is may accept'). This is thorough 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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what the tool does, who may use it, and the consequence plus alternative. There is no wasted wording.

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 tool with only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage rules, constraints, and outcomes. It is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke and what to expect, including the key warning about irreversibility.

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?

The schema covers 50% of parameters (version has a description, negotiation_id does not). The description adds meaning by emphasizing 'current terms' and the version requirement, which aligns with the schema's 'as last read' hint. However, it does not explicitly describe negotiation_id, leaving some burden on the schema.

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 it 'locks in the CURRENT terms... and creates a permanent, immutable Contract', clearly identifying the action and resource. It also names deal_propose_terms as an alternative, distinguishing this from sibling tools.

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 explains when to use: only when it is the agent's turn and accepting the other side's proposal. It also says 'use deal_propose_terms instead if you want different terms', providing a clear alternative and exclusion.

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