Deploy agreement

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-readOnly behavior. The description adds value by explaining the permit flow, the need for preflight, and that the API submits an on-chain transaction and returns a record. This context enriches understanding beyond annotations.

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 earning its place: the first explains the core action, the second outlines the permit workflow, and the third gives a prerequisite and scope. No fluff, front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 13 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the essential workflow steps. It covers prerequisites (preflight) and auth scope, making it complete for its complexity.

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% with detailed descriptions, so baseline is 3. The narrative description adds high-level context about permit components (signer, deadline, signatures) and references prepare_deployment_typed_data, but does not significantly elaborate beyond 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 clearly states the verb 'deploys', the resource 'authored agreement JSON', the mechanism 'EIP-712 permit', and the outcome 'returns the deployed agreement record'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning alternatives like prepare_deployment_typed_data.

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 explicitly states to 'Always run preflight_deployment before deploying' and 'Requires the agreements.write scope'. It also provides context on when to use prepare_deployment_typed_data first. It lacks explicit 'when not to use', but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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