deploy_contract

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a state-changing operation with external effects. The description adds little beyond saying 'Deploy' — it does not mention that deployment costs TRX, permanently writes to the blockchain, or that the contract address is derived from the sender. This is acceptable given annotation coverage, but the description could have added context about fees or irreversibility.

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 a single sentence, concise and to the point. It communicates the essential action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Deploy' and the resource, making it easy to scan.

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?

The tool has a non-trivial operation (deploying a contract), but the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., contract address), any prerequisite (e.g., a selected wallet), or caveats (e.g., fee costs). There is no output schema to fall back on, so the description should have filled that gap. It falls short for an agent to fully understand the deployment flow.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 6 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description only mentions 'ABI and Bytecode', which is already present in the schema. It does not add syntax, format details, or clarify constructor arguments or fee limits. Since the schema is fully documented, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Deploy'), the resource ('smart contract'), the target network ('TRON network'), and key inputs ('ABI and Bytecode'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_contract (which interacts with existing contracts) and read_contract (which reads state). The verb and resource are specific and 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that deployment is irreversible, requires a selected wallet, or should be used for new contracts only. The purpose implies usage, but there are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and no reference to sibling tools.

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