create_contract

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

The annotations only provide a title and no behavioral hints such as readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. The description implies a write/mutation operation but does not disclose permissions, side effects, required worker setup, or what happens on validation failures.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, for an 11-parameter mutation tool, it is arguably under-sized rather than optimally sized.

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 (11 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and only a title annotation), the description is far too sparse. It omits usage context, behavioral expectations, and any routing guidance needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so all 11 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a new contract.' It is distinguishable from list/get/update/terminate siblings by the create action, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_contract or split-contract flows, nor are prerequisites or common use cases mentioned. The description only identifies the action.

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