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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation, and the description adds useful context: the record is flagged as is_manual, status defaults to Draft, and it can be linked to a deal/project. However, it does not disclose what the response contains, whether related deal/project records are modified, or any side effects of creating the contract.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the key differentiator is stated clearly, and the linking guidance is in one final sentence. Every sentence contributes to correct tool selection and invocation.

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, the description covers the critical selection criteria and key field relationships. Since there is no output schema, it would be slightly stronger if it mentioned what the created record returns, but overall the description provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 50%, so the description partially compensates by explaining the purpose of deal_id/project_id linkage and the default status. It does not clarify parameters like customer_id, reference_number, or contract_value beyond what the schema already says, leaving some ambiguity.

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 action ('Create a contract record') and clearly differentiates this tool from the signed-proposal/e-signature flow by mentioning the is_manual flag. It is distinct from sibling tools like contracts_get and contracts_update and from CRM create 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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: for contracts agreed outside the offer/e-signature flow. It also tells agents that contracts from signed proposals are created by that other flow instead, preventing misuse. The instruction to link the contract to a CRM deal and/or project adds practical usage context.

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