petpals.create_task_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one side effect (updates the ticket description) but omits crucial behavioral details such as whether the description is overwritten or appended, whether permissions are required, whether the action is reversible, and what happens on validation failure. For a mutating tool, this is insufficient.

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 with no fluff, clearly front-loading the core action. It is appropriately concise for its length, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose. It earns a 4 for efficiency but not a 5 because it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 (10 parameters, 8 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a task contract is, how the parameters come together, what the returned result looks like, or any side effects beyond updating the description. This is far from adequate for an agent to use 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 only 20% (only ticketId and projectSlug have descriptions), and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the other 8 parameters. The term 'task contract' is vague and doesn't clarify how goal, scopeAllowed, primaryAgent, reviewer, acceptanceCriteria, or requiredValidation relate to the contract being created. The description adds little 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 action (create) and resource (task contract), and also notes the side effect of updating the ticket description. This distinguishes it from other tools like kitty.ticket.update_description because it also performs a creation step. However, it doesn't explain what a 'task contract' is, which is a minor ambiguity.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The implied usage is 'when you need to create a task contract and put it in the ticket description,' but there's no mention of alternative tools or conditions that would make this tool inappropriate.

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